At the time of Bryan’s election in 1934, some people had thought that he would only be a short-term, interim president. It was soon apparent, however, that he had a larger role to play, and that his impact on William and Mary would be substantial. This was shown by the immediate improvement in faculty and student morale and by the significant steps that he took towards his primary goal, the development of William and Mary as an outstanding liberal arts college. Bryan concentrated on improving the quality of its students, faculty, and academic program, not on physical expansion. In so doing he succeeded in making the College a different place from what it had been under Chandler. Still, he could not escape his share of troubles. Indeed, by the latter part of his presidency, he was forced to deal with matters that seriously threatened William and Mary’s status as an educational institution. Ultimately, he completed his mission, but it turned out to be a more difficult undertaking than he had originally envisioned.

Assistance from the New Deal

Although it was never Bryan’s major interest, some building and campus development did occur during the mid-1930s. Most had gotten under way before he took office. The coming of the New Deal in the spring ofl933 had presented William and Mary with opportunities for development of its physical plant that had been completely lacking since the onset of the Great Depression. In July 1933 Dean Hoke addressed an inquiry to Robert Fechner, director of the Emergency Conservation Work Program, or Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), as it was popularly known, about developing part of the College’s large woods and lake area into “a beautiful park.”^[1] It was the right idea at the right time. In September federal and state officials selected William and Mary to be the site of Camp SP-9, Camp Matoaka. The intention was to build roads and trails in about half of the College woods, leaving the rest as a “controlled forest.” In addition, an outdoor amphitheater was to be constructed. The camp headquarters was situated on the freshman athletic field west of the Bright House. In October the first workers, eighty-two blacks and two white officers, had been sent to the camp. Other black enrollees followed. About twenty white recruits were assigned to Camp Matoaka, but only for a short while, for with only one other exception, all CCC camps in Virginia were strictly segregated.^[2]

The original authorization for Camp Matoaka was for only six months (ending on April 1, 1934), but the CCC granted a request by both local and state authorities for an extension to October 1, 1934. Long before then, however, the results of the efforts of the CCC workers could be seen. As Hoke reported, they had rendered the College and Williamsburg “a very valuable service.”^[3] Thanks to the CCC, William and Mary acquired a beautiful park, with hiking paths, bridle trails, and picnic areas adjoining Lake Matoaka. The CCC also constructed Players’ Dell, an open-air amphitheater seating about 300 people, located in the woods near the road that looped around the west end of the campus. The formal opening of Matoaka Park and the dedication of Players’ Dell were held on the day of Bryan’s inauguration, October 20, 1934. For the occasion, members of the William and Mary Theatre, directed by Althea Hunt, presented The Ghost of Windsor Park, a play by Harold Brighouse about the young women who had been sent to Jamestown to become wives for the settlers.^[4]

The development of Matoaka Park did not stop with the departure of the CCC, and for a while thereafter, the College continued some of the work and attempted to maintain the area. In 1935, for example, it arranged for the construction of a boathouse on Lake Matoaka. It also authorized a private individual to open a riding stable. The park was a place of beauty, valuable not only for recreational purposes, but for the protection and study of native flora and fauna. Unfortunately, what had been viewed as an object of great pride was not appreciated for long. Neglected during World War II, the park continued to deteriorate and by the 1950s was effectively abandoned as a College facility. As one historian of the William and Mary campus concluded: “The fate of Matoaka Park, unfortunately, does not speak well for the ability of the College to plan comprehensively and to maintain firm commitments to values and assets once highly prized.”^[5]

The New Deal assistance to William and Mary went far beyond the work on Matoaka Park. Thanks to loans and grants from the Public Works Administration (PWA), the College gained two new buildings and an athletic stadium. On October 4, 1933, the Board of Visitors approved an application to the Federal Emergency Administration of Public Works for a loan and grant totaling $650,000 to construct a new Taliaferro Hall, the Marshall-Wythe Building, a student activities building, and what was euphemistically called an amphitheater, but was really a football stadium.^[6] Surviving many layers of the state and federal bureaucracy, the application was finally approved. On April 2, 1934, Bryan (as vice-rector), Governor Peery, and Secretary of the Interior Harold L. Ickes (who headed the PWA) signed the formal contract for P.W. 8222. Under it the federal government agreed to purchase William and Mary College Building Improvement Bonds totaling $523,000 (in effect loaning that amount to the College). In addition, the federal government would make a grant of money to bring the total amount available up to $650,000. To pay off the loan the Board approved charging each student an annual maintenance fee of $20.^[7]

The first two phases of the building project, Marshall-Wythe Building and Taliaferro, were soon under way. Located just beyond Rogers Hall, Marshall-Wythe (later renamed James Blair Hall) completed the north side of the campus, flanking what shortly after became the Sunken Garden. It was designed for both administration and classroom use. The first floor provided offices for the president, bursar, registrar, and deans; the second and third housed the Marshall-Wythe School of Government and Citizenship, the School of Jurisprudence, and the economics, government, history, and sociology departments. Although it was completed in 1935, the Marshall-Wythe Building was not formally dedicated until April 23, 1937, at ceremonies that included an address by Walter Lippmann, the celebrated columnist.^[8] Taliaferro Hall was built as a dormitory, with multipurpose space on the first floor intended mainly for social purposes. Completed in 1935, it was located on the south campus, facing Jamestown Road, just west of old Taliaferro Hall. The latter, built in 1893 as a dormitory, had been used for the offices of the administration. It was soon to be remodeled as a building for the fine arts department. The third project, a student activities building, was to have been located in the space west of Washington Hall, immediately opposite Marshall-Wythe. Unfortunately, all the bids for its construction exceeded the estimates. Unwilling to risk an increase in indebtedness, William and Mary submitted an amended application to the PWA, dropping the project. This reduced the total amount of the loan to $470,000. Nearly sixty years later the site of the proposed building was still vacant.^[9]

The construction of the new Taliaferro Hall set the stage for a minor controversy with Colonial Williamsburg officials. Initially, the College authorities considered using the space on the first floor for a tearoom and bookstore. The lack of a college bookstore had long been a matter of concern. The practice for many years had been to have the College Shop handle student books, a privilege for which the manager paid a monthly fee to William and Mary.^[10] Around 1929 the Williamsburg Holding Corporation (the predecessor of Colonial Williamsburg, Incorporated) purchased the property where the College Shop was located, as part of its efforts to establish a business district in harmony with the restored area and to provide some income to assist in the restoration. Thus, the news that William and Mary was considering opening a tearoom and bookstore greatly alarmed Colonial Williamsburg officials. Writing to Acting President Hoke in May 1934, Kenneth Chorley, the president of Williamsburg Restoration, Incorporated (as Colonial Williamsburg was then known), recalled Chandler’s promise that the College would not engage in business which would compete with existing businesses in Williamsburg. “This is a matter of vital concern to the Restoration,” he stated. “If the College’s policy with respect to this matter has been changed, it would undoubtedly have a material effect on further plans of the Restoration in connection with business properties.” Chorley also sent his letter to Charlie Duke, then a member of the Board of Visitors, who in reply insisted that he was opposed to the College engaging in a business enterprise of that sort. The Board of Visitors discussed the issue at its June 1934 meeting. Although the Board took no formal action, the plans for a tearoom and bookstore in Taliaferro were quietly set aside.^[11]

Despite its limitations, the College Shop continued to handle the textbooks. In 1937 faculty and students petitioned the Board to establish a cooperative bookstore on campus.^[12] It was to no avail. A change in policy finally came about in 1941–42. The opportunity arose at that time because of the pressing need for improved public facilities due to the increasing number of tourists and servicemen visiting Williamsburg. In October 1941 Bryan notified Robert P. Wallace, manager of the College Shop, that his concession for selling textbooks would not be renewed. Instead, the College planned to install a cafeteria in the west wing of the dining hall and to equip the east wing with a lounge, soda fountain, and a bookstore. Despite a formal protest by the Williamsburg Chamber of Commerce about William and Mary’s plan to conduct a business enterprise “in direct competition with the business interests of Williamsburg,” the College proceeded with the project. The new facility, dubbed the Wigwam, opened in April 1942.^[13] Some years later the bookstore was moved to the first floor of Taliaferro, as originally intended.

Construction of the third phase of the PWA project, the so-called amphitheater located on Cary Field Park west of Old Dominion Hall and south of the Bright House, got under way in the spring of 1935. As PWA regulations did not allow use of its funds for a stadium per se, William and Mary had proposed an amphitheater that could be used for concerts, convocations, and other open-air events. Dean Hoke and others portrayed the facility in such terms, but all knew that its primary use would be for football games.^[14] By September 1935 the new facility was ready. Seating about 8,500 and built at a cost of $179,000, the stadium was formally dedicated on September 21, 1935, before a football game with the University of Virginia.^[15] Its opening marked the end of a major phase in the development of the William and Mary campus that had been begun under Chandler in the 1920s. Many years would pass before significant new construction began again.

Besides buildings, the New Deal helped William and Mary in other, less conspicuous ways. In February 1934 the Federal Emergency Relief Administration (FERA) offered funds to pay eligible students for a variety of campus jobs. The pay was low—from ten to twenty dollars a month depending on the number of hours worked—but it was welcome financial assistance for more than one hundred students. The next year similar student jobs were secured through the National Youth Administration (NYA), under a program that continued to the early 1940s.^[16] In the fall of 1934, the College applied, without success, for assistance from the Civil Works Administration (CWA) to help grade the Sunken Garden. The next year, however, it did get assistance from the Works Progress Administration (WPA) in beautifying the grounds and constructing walks.^[17] Finally, although it was separate from the campus in Williamsburg, William and Mary’s Norfolk Division also received federal assistance for building construction in the form of a loan and grant from the PWA.^[18]

The Lure of Independence

Bryan certainly welcomed the substantial contributions that the New Deal made to William and Mary’s physical plant, but his primary concern was the creation of a strong college of liberal arts, not campus expansion. To achieve this goal, however, he realized that the College’s financial affairs had to be set in order. Thanks to the work of Charlie Duke and Vernon Nunn, by 1935 the College had reformed its accounting practices to the full satisfaction of L. McCarthy Downs. The liquidation of William and Mary’s outstanding debt was not so quickly accomplished, but Bryan’s conservative fiscal approach did result in a steady reduction of its size.

Some of those who shared Bryan’s concern about the College’s financial wellbeing believed that its problems might be resolved if it could acquire sufficient endowment to permit William and Mary to become an independent, private institution. From time to time, even Chandler had toyed with the idea of having William and Mary sever its connections with the state, but the very limited success of the endowment drive during his presidency gave little grounds for encouragement. Still the idea persisted. Immediately after Chandler’s death, James H. Dillard recorded his “belief that Members of the Board, if endowment could be secured, are ready to favor having the College independent.”^[19] W. A R Goodwin, who knew well the problems of trying to raise money for a state institution, agreed and suggested that this moment provided an opportunity, which “might not return in a life time,” to separate William and Mary from political control and establish it “upon an independent foundation.”^[20]

Realists would probably have dismissed such a notion out of hand, had it not been for the widely circulated rumor that John D. Rockefeller, Jr., was sympathetic to it.^[21] Indeed, Rockefeller had given some encouragement to the idea. When he wrote to Bryan on June 23, 1934, to urge him to accept the presidency, he noted that a “considerable group” of Board members apparently favored having William and Mary ”become an outstanding centre of intellectual life and culture under private ownership and management” And he added: “This is a program which I have long hoped might ultimately be carried out” Moreover, Rockefeller had earlier discussed the idea with Senator Byrd and Chandler. But he had never promised his financial backing. On the contrary, when Chandler asked him if he would contribute the six to ten million dollars needed in endowment, Rockefeller had responded that in light of all his expenditures for restoring Williamsburg, he “must not be looked to for any contribution whatever, either large or small.” Furthermore, he made clear to Bryan that he had not changed his position on this point.^[22] In short, Rockefeller’s support for William and Mary’s independence was moral, not financial.

The immediate flurry about Rockefeller and William and Mary soon subsided. But separating the College from state control was an idea that continued to resurface from time to time. Even the notion that Rockefeller might donate the necessary endowment was not completely abandoned. Bryan, however, did not seem to have any illusions on either point. For example, during a visit to Williamsburg in the spring of 1938, Rockefeller asked him if he still favored having William and Mary become a private institution. Bryan responded: ”Under restrictions, yes.” One was a guarantee of an income at least equal to what the state gave to the College, which was then the equivalent of the interest, at 3 percent, on nine million dollars. The other was that the Board would have to be composed of Virginians,” people who by inheritance & by tradition were in sympathy with the ideals and purposes of the College of William and Mary.” Rockefeller replied: “We have no interest whatever in William and Mary as a college.”^[23]

Although Bryan was uncertain just what was intended by that remark, he still hoped that Rockefeller might be enticed to help William and Mary in a modest way. Thus he asked Rockefeller if he would be willing to have the General Education Board give William and Mary the interest on one million dollars for a ten-year period, which interest would be used to build up the College’s endowment. Rockefeller expressed interest in the idea, but first he wanted to send someone to look over William and Mary’s accounts.^[24] Bryan readily agreed. As a result, in April 1938 A. W. Armour, the chief auditor of the General Education Board, spent a few days at the College and prepared a report on its fiscal affairs. The Armour Report noted the heavy borrowing that had been done under Chandler, but praised Bryan for establishing a policy that, over a period of years, was going to wipe out its debt and reestablish its endowment, money that had been tied up in debt liquidation. Despite this favorable report, however, nothing came of Bryan’s proposal. To add to this disappointment, the General Education Board soon after turned down William and Mary’s latest funding requests. After that Bryan made no more suggestions to Rockefeller about William and Mary.^[25]

That did not put an end to the idea that William and Mary might become a private institution. Indeed, it became a major subject of discussion, following an address by Vernon M. Geddy, a Williamsburg lawyer and a vice-president of Colonial Williamsburg, at the annual dinner of the alumni association on June 3, 1939. Geddy reminded his listeners of the case of Dartmouth College, which in the early nineteenth century had fought all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States to maintain its private charter. Although it had been exhausted by that fight, Dartmouth came back, and in the twentieth century, raised a substantial private endowment It was “a college privately owned and controlled, with complete academic freedom, and a faculty required to teach not more than twelve hours per week so that ample time might be given to research and study.” Could not William and Mary alumni do as well by their college? he asked. Raising doubts about the certainty of adequate state appropriations, Geddy suggested that the alumni should “seek private funds, sufficient to make her independent of public bounty. … The gates of opportunity are open wide; the Golden Hour of William and Mary is at hand.”^[26] Geddy’ s remarks were reported widely in Virginia and became the subject of a couple of dozen newspaper editorials. Many of these responded favorably to the idea, and a number suggested that Geddy was hinting that Rockefeller might endow William and Mary. The rumor that a large sum of money was out there, just waiting for the asking, was widely circulated in the summer and early fall of 1939.^[27] Two prominent alumni, H. Lester Hooker, a member of the State Corporation Commission, and James D. Carneal, Jr., a realtor active in the Richmond alumni organization, called on Bryan on October 2 to ask if he had in fact refused large sums of money. In response, Bryan reviewed his relations with Rockefeller, and showed clearly that no such sum of money had been offered to William and Mary, and so none could have been refused.^[28]

Two days later Bryan emphatically made the same point at a meeting of the Board of Visitors. The rumors were not only false, he said, they were harmful. “The soundest way to secure large gifts for William and Mary is to continue to build up the reputation of the Faculty, the quality of the students, and the services which the College renders. Undoubtedly these efforts have been impeded by rumors and statements generally made.” Bryan’s hope was that William and Mary might regain “that position of preeminence and leadership in the field of constructive citizenship which characterized it under the administration of George Wythe and St. George Tucker, and in addition may in this day bring again to the field of education that freshness of vision and practical use of study and of thought which marked the contribution of Thomas Jefferson to the field of education.” If that could be done, he believed that it would create an atmosphere at William and Mary that would encourage potential benefactors to contribute to it.^[29] The lure of independence may have faded, but it had not been entirely abandoned.

The Works Report

After hearing Bryan’s report at its October 4 meeting, the Board, at his suggestion, directed the rector to appoint a special committee of the Board and others “to formulate plans for The College of William and Mary, and to seek Endowment for the furtherance of such plans and for other purposes.”^[30] Meeting on November 4, 1939, this committee immediately concluded that before it could proceed any further, it would need the guidance of a study of the College made by “some outstanding educator.”^[31] Bryan readily agreed. Towards that end he conferred with Rockefeller and with Jackson Davis of the General Education Board, which promised to finance the project. To conduct the study Bryan turned to Professor George A. Works of the University of Chicago, an educator who had been involved in a number of similar surveys.^[32] Works visited Williamsburg in early May 1940 and, assisted by a number of specialists in several different fields, continued work on the study for the next several months. His report, a substantial document of 106 pages, was submitted in mid-February 1941.^[33]

The Works Report brought together a considerable amount of data on William and Mary’s student body, faculty, educational program, finances, and administration. For the most part Works presented the College in a favorable light, but he identified several problems—some serious, some less—and made numerous recommendations. Some problems, such as the need to recruit more and academically stronger Virginia men, were obvious ones with which William and Mary was already trying to deal. But a few of his comments suggested that Works was not fully sensitive to the College’s ideals and practices. Although he accepted the fact that the major emphasis of the educational program was on the liberal arts, he criticized the College for having too many small classes, thereby increasing the “cost of instruction without necessarily improving its quality.”^[34] He did not recommend any major curriculum reforms, but he did suggest that the program for freshmen and sophomores was rather heavy and should be studied. One of his complaints was that the language requirement was “especially heavy” and that it and the mathematics requirement were out of line with the “practices of state supported colleges and universities.”^[35] Works had few criticisms of specific departments, but he did favor the creation of a program, one that would not be bound by department lines, to train students for “public administrative service.”^[36] Apparently unaware of the difficulties Bryan had encountered, Works also recommended that the College establish closer relations with Colonial Williamsburg and even proposed that the two share a common library building.^[37]

One of the academic programs Works did have serious reservations about was law. Although he saw value for undergraduates, especially those going into public administration, in some of the courses in jurisprudence, he did not believe that the state should continue to support the training of lawyers at William and Mary. He favored continuing the professional program only if it was paid for by private funds. Curiously, he did not mention the recent controversy over the attempted closing of the law school.^[38] In contrast to his conclusions about the law program, Works recommended that William and Mary offer the master of arts in more areas, including public administration, public school administration, and most of the subjects included in the high school curriculum. Besides law, the only other department Works specifically attacked was home economics, which he said drew few students and should be dropped as a major, with its offerings limited to a few courses.^[39]

In addition to these criticisms, Works was especially harsh on the administration of the College library, which he condemned as “not satisfactory.” The detailed complaints were set forth in a separate twenty-page report prepared for the study by William M. Randall, a professor of library science at the University of Chicago.^[40] That report, which was remarkable for its insensitivity, not only condemned Earl Gregg Swem for being too old, but declared that he should never have been hired in the first place. Randall described Swem as “an extremely kind-hearted individual” with “antiquarian interests,” who had “largely lost the respect of the faculty as a librarian.” He had little good to say about most of the library staff and concluded that reorganization “from the top down” was needed.^[41]

Swem was understandably incensed by Randall’s report. So were many other faculty members. Many of Randall’s comments showed an ignorance of William and Mary’s history, of Swem’s contributions to scholarship and to the development of the College library, and of the work of the staff. Randall seemed to think, for example, that Swem was still working on the Virginia Historical Index, a monumental achievement that was published between 1934 and 1936, and Randall’s comments indicated that he did not have the slightest idea of its significance. That the library had its limitations could not be denied; but Randall’s condemnation of it and its hardworking staff was not deserved. So at least was not only Swem’ s opinion, but also that of the executive committee of William and Mary’s chapter of Phi Beta Kappa, which prepared a detailed analysis of the report a year later. “We make no claim to perfection for either library or librarian,” they concluded, ” but this is a good library such as does not grow without good management and it has grown better and better during the years of his administration. … The librarian has been, and is, an able and efficient librarian.”^[42] The Board of Visitors also did not accept Randall’s conclusions, and in June 1941 it granted Swem an honorary doctor of laws degree.^[43]

In reviewing William and Mary’s financial practices, Works, like L. McCarthy Downs a few years earlier, strongly criticized the College for borrowing endowment funds for the construction of buildings or other purposes. Although the College called these investments, Works argued that they were questionable ones that led to loss of funds more frequently than to real gains.^[44] As for the administration, Works acknowledged that Bryan had raised both student and faculty morale, but he complained that under Bryan’s informal style of leadership, responsibility was not clearly defined. Instead, Works proposed an administrative reorganization that would create a new dean of students and a new dean of the College with responsibility over the faculty, the budgets, the curriculum, and the Norfolk Division. He would also (in an unnamed reference to Charlie Duke) separate the position of bursar from that of assistant to the president.^[45]

Works believed that William and Mary’s most serious problems were those posed by the Norfolk and Richmond Divisions—ones involving students, faculty, curriculum, administration, and finances. The faculty in both were underpaid and overworked, and neither division was adequately financed; nor did either receive the attention it needed from the central administration. Works acknowledged that the Richmond Professional Institute (RPI), the name given to the Richmond Division of William and Mary in 1939, performed some valuable services, but, as a result of financial limitations, the quality was not always what it should have been. As RPI had little in common with William and Mary, and few of its students ever transferred to Williamsburg, Works questioned whether William and Mary should continue its relationship with it. He recommended that the Medical College of Virginia take over the administration of the public health nursing and the physiotherapy sections of RPI. He suggested that William and Mary pool its efforts with VPI, and possibly the University of Virginia, in regard to the program in social work, and that the State Board of Education take control of the remaining first two-year or junior college courses.^[46]

Works concluded that the situation in Norfolk was only slightly better. Although it too felt isolated from the main campus, about thirty-seven students a year did transfer to Williamsburg to complete college work. Works saw three legitimate functions for the Norfolk Division: vocational instruction at the junior college level, general education for those who did not have time to take a four-year program, and preparation for students who planned to transfer after two years to a four-year college. But he thought that the courses offered had to be expanded to adapt to the needs of workers and others in the area. If the William and Mary administration would accept the Norfolk Division “wholeheartedly,” it would be ” an opportunity to serve a large segment of the population of Virginia.” Although Works was rather more positive about Norfolk than Richmond, he still raised the possibility of the State Board of Education managing it as a junior college program.^[47] In the case of both Richmond and Norfolk, however, Works made clear that it would be unsatisfactory to have matters continue as they had been.

Although the Works Report presented an interesting summary of William and Mary, its ultimate usefulness was limited. Rector Bohannan correctly pointed out to Bryan that it left “something to be desired with respect to the vision of the author as to the future of the College from what we may call the long view, as contrasted with the next step,” and he lamented the fact that Works did nothing to suggest how William and Mary might secure “an endowment looking to the complete independence of the College, if that seemed desirable.” At the same time, Bohannan agreed that the Norfolk and Richmond Divisions presented serious problems.^[48] In discussions with Bryan, Works emphasized his view that William and Mary should get rid of some of its “professional curricula,” especially the majors in library science and home economics, and that it should drop the law school. But the most important thing to do, he said, was to get a “first class dean,” one who had supervision over all divisions of the College.^[49] In a letter to Oscar Shewmake several months later, Works went even further and recommended that the first change that ought to be undertaken was the establishment of a new administration, including the presidency and the deanship.^[50] There is no evidence that the Board of Visitors concurred in such a harsh view of Bryan’s leadership.

As it turned out, Bryan, who became seventy years old in October 1941, was soon to retire. But that was likely to have happened in any event. Overall, it is not clear that any significant changes in policy resulted from the Works Report. The special committee which had originally suggested the need for such a study considered the numerous recommendations, agreed with many, and ignored others.^[51] William and Mary continued to place its major emphasis on the liberal arts, but it also kept its law school and, for the time being, its library science program. It continued efforts to increase its male enrollment, but it did not acquire a new dean. Nor did it dismiss Swem, although he too was soon to retire. William and Mary did not desist in its efforts to increase its endowment, but nothing dramatic happened, and any lingering hopes that it might possibly become independent were abandoned.

The Troubling Divisions

One major problem area identified in the Works Report, the condition of the Norfolk and Richmond Divisions, came as no surprise. For several years both had struggled along without adequate funding, facilities, or faculty. Indeed, after an inspection in 1937 by University of North Carolina Dean W. W. Pierson for the Committee on Classification of Universities and Colleges of the Association of American Universities (AAU), William and Mary was warned that it had to make a number of improvements in these divisions if it were to remain on the AAU’s list of approved institutions. The AAU’s committee was particularly troubled by the poor support and inadequate facilities at both divisions. As for the Norfolk Division, it pointed to ” the poor faculty salaries, the wholly inadequate library, the heavy teaching loads of the faculty members, and the fact that the division seemed to be exceeding its original purposes and that there were a number of students who were taking a third year of college work.” The committee also criticized the Richmond Division for apparently duplicating programs offered by the University of Richmond and for the quality of some of its graduate work.^[52]

The danger that William and Mary could be adversely affected because of deficiencies in the Norfolk and Richmond Divisions was real, so the administration did what it could to meet the AAU’s criticisms. As the Norfolk Division was obliged to operate on a self-supporting basis, obtaining needed funds was a central problem. This was partly met by increasing enrollments for the fall semester of 1938 by some eighty students, which resulted in an increase in tuition revenues of about $18,000.^[53] In a report submitted in October 1938 to Dean Pierson and to Frank H. Bowles, secretary of the AAU’s Committee on Classification, and in response to their criticism that the division had exceeded its original purpose, Dean Hoke reiterated that Norfolk was to remain a junior college with only two years of work in the arts and sciences. To enforce this the College’s committee on degrees also set sixty-six hours as the maximum amount of credit toward a bachelor’s degree that could be transferred from there. Hoke also stated that Bryan had approved an additional expenditure of $2,000 for books for the library and $1,800 to increase professors’ salaries in the Norfolk Division, and that he had authorized Norfolk to hire another English instructor and a part-time mathematics instructor for the fall semester, plus another instructor in biology or chemistry in the spring. As for the Richmond Division, Hoke emphasized that its program was primarily vocational, for which there was a demonstrated demand, and that College policy would be not to duplicate any work in arts and sciences given by other institutions. Expenditures for the library there were to be increased for the 1938–39 session, and a full-time librarian had been hired beginning September 1, 1938. Increases had also been made in salaries to bring the associate professors to at least $2,500 a year.^[54]

For the time being, these steps met the demands of the Committee on Classification, at least in regard to the Norfolk Division. The committee was less pleased with the rate of progress in the Richmond Division, which, Bowles stressed, needed more financial support.^[55] The AAU’s criticisms prompted two changes there. Since the mid-1920s the College catalogue had stated that students could take the same freshman and sophomore courses in Richmond as were offered in Williamsburg and then transfer to there or to some other college for their junior and senior years. This program attracted few students, but it invited the criticism of the AAU for unnecessarily duplicating work available at other institutions. In 1939 reference to it was dropped from the catalogue.^[56] At the same time, in order to reflect more accurately the nature of its program, the name of the Richmond Division of the College of William and Mary was changed to the Richmond Professional Institute of the College of William and Mary.^[57]

Although some progress had been made, the Norfolk and Richmond Divisions continued to create troubles for William and Mary. Both were a drain on the College’s limited resources. Not until 1940 did RPI finally receive a state appropriation, and that remained very small until the 1950s.^[58] To meet its obligations for 1939–40, Norfolk finally had to borrow $10,000 from William and Mary, a significant part of the College’s total deficit of $18,000 for that year.^[59] Disgusted with the continuing problems, on October 25, 1940, the board of directors of the Society of the Alumni passed a resolution recommending that the Norfolk Division be severed from the College; but, tempted though they may have been, neither Bryan nor the Board of Visitors was then willing to accept that remedy.^[60]

Still, problems kept arising. One, which involved the policy that limited Norfolk to two years of college work, raised serious questions about William T. Hodges’s leadership as dean of the division. As early as 1934–35, Bryan had warned Hodges against giving three years of college work at Norfolk when only two years had been authorized. It was a violation of AAU policy that could threaten the standing of William and Mary itself. Unfortunately, as the 1937 AAU report showed, Hodges continued to allow the rule to be violated.^[61] In January 1939 Bryan directed Dean Miller to assume general supervision of the educational affairs of the division. Upon visiting Norfolk shortly afterwards, Miller discovered that Hodges had never informed the faculty that third year work had to be dropped. Later, on October 4, 1939, Bryan reported that Hodges had disregarded instructions and permitted a student “to secure in excess of two years’ work towards a degree.” Bryan advised the Board that if it happened again ” he would feel compelled to recommend that drastic action be taken.”^[62] This troublesome issue foreshadowed a much more serious problem that came to light a little more than a year later.

Scandal and Suspension

The sequence of events began on January 17, 1941, when Bryan, Duke, and Miller went to Norfolk to discuss problems concerning the library and buildings and grounds with Hodges. While they were there, some of the faculty took Miller aside and told him that “things were going very badly” in Norfolk, that “morale was extremely low, and that the Faculty was very much disturbed by the way Dr. Hodges was running the Division.” Miller asked them to come to Williamsburg to discuss the matter further. At a meeting on February 6, they reiterated their complaints about Hodges, and asserted that he was ineffective, that he spent money unwisely, that he had lost his interest in the Division,” and that he was “disloyal” to the College administration.^[63] Worse was yet to come. When Miller returned to Norfolk on February 11, one of the faculty told him that Hodges had falsified the records of some students on transcripts sent out to other institutions, and as the registrar at Norfolk had refused to sign such altered transcripts, Hodges had signed them himself. Miller went immediately to Bryan with this disturbing information. Bryan, in turn, informed Bohannan and Channing Hall, then a Williamsburg member of the Board. He also sent Kathleen Alsop to Norfolk to check records, and in a short while “she found four or five” altered transcripts.^[64]

Obviously, this was a serious problem that had to be dealt with quickly and decisively. On March 21 Bryan, Duke, and Miller went to Norfolk to investigate. Before Bryan spoke to Hodges, he called on A. Herbert Foreman, a Norfolk member of the Board of Visitors and a close friend of Hodges. Foreman was “deeply affected” by the revelations. Bryan then conferred with Hodges, and asked him about alterations in the transcripts of three specific students. Hodges replied: “It is all true, and I have no regrets about it.” He took the position that he had merely given justifiable assistance to some students who needed a boost. Bryan “was shocked by this situation and by the apparent imperviousness of Dr. Hodges to the significance of the whole matter.” He told Hodges that he had no authority to alter the records and that he had “acted entirely outside” his rights.^[65]

After this exchange, Bryan met again with Foreman, who expressed his hope that Bryan would deal with Hodges “as leniently as possible.” Bryan responded “that the honor and name of the College of William and Mary, the standing of all its students, and the faith and credit of the transcripts given to all students would be greatly damaged, if not destroyed, were such acts as those of Dr. Hodges tolerated.”^[66] The next day Bryan discussed the problem at a special meeting of the executive committee of the Board of Visitors. Foreman, who had talked with Hodges, presented Hodges’s explanations of the transcript alterations, but Bryan was unimpressed. Acknowledging Hodges’s long service to the College, Bryan suggested, and the committee agreed, “that Hodges be allowed to resign.” Wishing not to be unduly harsh, however, Bryan went out of his way to ease Hodges’ s departure by going to Richmond to see if Jackson Davis of the General Education Board could find a place for him.^[67]

On March 25 Bryan returned to Norfolk, accompanied by Miller and Alsop. He began his conference with Hodges by discussing the altered transcripts. One involved a student who had applied to transfer to the United States Naval Academy. As he would not be accepted without physics, which he had not taken, Hodges had crossed off a course in economics and substituted “Physics 100B.” He also raised a D grade in chemistry to a C for this same student. While this discussion was going on, Alsop made a more extensive search of the files. Her labors produced some thirty-five records that Hodges had altered since 1935. When confronted with this evidence, Hodges did not deny that he had falsified records. Instead, he claimed that such irregularities were a common practice and would even be found in the earlier files at William and Mary. Bryan replied that he did not believe that to be true. He then asked Hodges to submit his resignation in writing. Hodges promised to do so.^[68]

Soon after, however, Hodges had second thoughts. The next day he sent a special delivery letter to Bryan in which he said that, after consulting with friends, he had changed his mind. Rather than resign,

I prefer to face the issue which you have raised. I am ready, with a clear conscience, to stand behind everything I have done during the eight years of my service here. If you still feel that you do not wish me to continue in charge of this Division, then I must ask for a full investigation and hearing before the Board of Visitors of the College.^[69]

As a result, Bryan arranged for a hearing before the Board in Williamsburg. This was originally set for April 2, but was later changed to Saturday, April 12.^[70]

Bryan subsequently explained that in requesting Hodges’s resignation he was only referring to his position as dean of the Norfolk Division, and that he intended to try to find some other place for him at William and Mary, either in Norfolk or Williamsburg. But Bryan found that Hodges’s attitude and tactics made that difficult. Hodges not only failed to acknowledge the seriousness of what he had done; he tried to convince others that it was a common and even an acceptable practice. One of his defenders was Robert M. Hughes, Jr., a prominent alumnus and Norfolk attorney, who urged Bryan to treat Hodges leniently. “If he has committed an act of poor discretion or wrong judgment,” he wrote, “at least it was nothing worse.”^[71] Hughes then went to see Bryan and, taking his cue from Hodges, argued that it was an accepted practice for school executives to exercise discretion in recording student grades. Bryan was appalled at such a misconception, and replied that the practice did not exist at any college he knew of. It would be like a bank certifying checks it knew to be no good.^[72] At Bryan’s request Alsop inquired about practices regarding student records at the University of Virginia and the University of Richmond. As expected, she reported that they observed careful procedures to preserve the integrity of records. Officials at the University of Richmond “could not comprehend that any officer of the college would take it upon himself to change the record as submitted by the individual instructor.”^[73] Bryan also asked George A. Works if he had ever heard of a college executive having the discretionary power to make changes in the records. Works responded in no uncertain terms that such practices could not be tolerated. “I shall be very much surprised in case this comes to the attention of the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools if the institution is not dropped from the accredited list.”^[74]

Works correctly understood that Hodges’s actions had placed William and Mary in serious jeopardy. Nevertheless, when the story became public, a surprising number of people, especially those from the Norfolk area who were appreciative of his work in developing the Norfolk Division, rallied to his support. Many simply failed to comprehend the gravity of his offense. The Norfolk Virginian-Pilot saw no big problem, noting that the charges did not involve “moral turpitude or financial irregularity,” and that the alterations involved a very small percentage of the students who had passed through during the time Hodges was dean. It accepted Hodges’s explanation that he believed he had executive discretion to make such changes, and that he believed that he acted “to serve the true cause of education, and not to hinder it.”^[75] Numerous other people expressed similar sentiments in letters sent to Bryan or in letters and petitions sent to Governor James H. Price. Eventually, nearly one hundred organizations in Norfolk, such as the Women’s Republican League, the Retail Merchants Association, and the Kiwanis Club, passed resolutions asking Bryan to retain Hodges as dean of the Norfolk Division.^[76]

Over two hundred Hodges supporters showed up in Williamsburg for the meeting on April 12. As it turned out, the Board of Visitors did not have to conduct a full hearing on the case. Instead, Shewmake introduced a resolution to appoint a special committee to study the advisability of William and Mary severing its connections with the Norfolk Division. Hodges and his counsel agreed to withdraw the request for a hearing at that time if, as happened, the resolution passed. The committee was instructed to report within thirty days.^[77] In the meantime Bryan prepared a letter to be sent to those who had written to him about the case. In it he briefly reviewed events since February, refuted the various arguments used to defend Hodges’s actions, and pointed out that they threatened William and Mary.

No matter what the motive may have been the effect of these cases is gravely to injure the reputation of the College of William and Mary at Norfolk and to imperil the standing of William and Mary, as an accredited college, if such practices as those of Dr. Hodges are not immediately disavowed and placed beyond the possibility of recurrence.^[78]

Just how this was to be done was still not clear. Bohannan was worried that if the special committee reported against severing connections with Norfolk, Hodges would then insist on a full hearing. This matter was soon resolved. On April 30 Hodges wrote to Bryan and explained that he had only asked for a hearing because he had understood that Bryan had wanted him to sever all connections with the College. But he now understood that Bryan only intended him to resign as dean of the Norfolk Division and that he would be reassigned to other duties. Hodges said that he did not question Bryan’s authority to make such a change, and he was willing to resign his deanship. Bryan immediately accepted the resignation, and diplomatically praised Hodges for the “essential part” he had played in building the Norfolk Division. Bryan did not then indicate what new duties would be given to Hodges.^[79] Hodges’s supporters hoped that this would end the controversy. An editorial in the Daily Press, entitled “Amicably Settled—Too Late,” regretted that the dispute could not have been handled privately, and, in a striking misjudgment, concluded that “it now has the appearance of having been a tempest in a teapot.”^[80]

On May 10 the special committee of the Board reported against having William and Mary end its connections with the Norfolk Division. The report acknowledged that the division had been costly for William and Mary, but it was concerned that such a separation would be too big a loss for the people of Norfolk. Instead of breaking away, the committee recommended that relations between the College and the Norfolk Division be strengthened, that the liberal arts courses there be supplemented by vocational instruction and special courses to aid in the national defense, and that an advisory committee of five Norfolk citizens be appointed to assist the administration. The Board unanimously adopted these recommendations.^[81] On May 16 Bryan announced that Charles J. Duke, Jr., would head the Norfolk Division, beginning July 1, 1941. Hodges would remain under him and was to take charge of the VPI engineering defense courses and the Norfolk extension courses.^[82] With these steps it appeared that William and Mary had weathered the storm.

The temporary calm was deceptive. In early May 1941, Frank H. Bowles and Dean R. G. D. Richardson of the Committee on Classification of the AAU made another visit to William and Mary and to the Richmond and Norfolk Divisions. As they had studied the Works Report, they did not believe that another detailed investigation was necessary. Their report, completed in the early fall of 1941, recommended that William and Mary remain on the AAU’s accredited list. But, agreeing with the criticisms in the Works Report, they listed some “potential trouble points,” such as the relationship with RPI, Swem as librarian, the problem of recruiting enough able students and the attendant low graduation rate, the lack of a clear definition of the duties of administrative officers, and President Bryan as leader. Most importantly, they warned that “if accreditation is continued, it should be with the understanding that the Norfolk division is a plague spot demanding vigorous attention.” Their report went into the Hodges case in some detail. Although they acknowledged that some improvements had been made since May, they were not satisfied that there was yet proper educational leadership at Norfolk. In the latter part of the summer, Hodges had been granted a leave to become executive officer of the Hampton Roads Regional Defense Council, but Bowles and Richardson were unhappy over the fact that he could presumably return to the Norfolk Division in any capacity. They also stated that more had to be done to make the changes recommended in Pierson’s 1937 report and in the Works Report.^[83]

Despite their criticisms, Bowles and Richardson had recommended that William and Mary retain its accreditation. Their undated report appears to have been written in early October 1941, although neither Bryan nor any other William and Mary official saw it until mid-December.^[84] Earlier, in a letter sent to Bryan on June 6, Bowles had given no indication that the College might be disapproved; nor had Richardson, in a letter to Dean Miller on October 23.^[85] For that reason Bryan’s shock was all the greater when on November 3, 1941, he received a letter from Bowles, dated October 30, informing him that the AAU had suspended William and Mary from its approved list.^[86] In so doing the AAU had overruled the recommendation by Bowles and Richardson. On November 5 Dean Pierson wrote a more detailed letter, explaining the reasons for the action by the Committee on Classification. These were: (1) the Hodges case, including the doubt about his continued relationship to the Norfolk Division; (2) the inadequate support for the Norfolk Division, particularly its library; and (3) the need for the College to exercise greater administrative supervision of the Norfolk Division. In addition, they considered Duke’s appointment to be unfortunate in that the situation called for someone who was an educator as well as an administrator.^[87]

During the next few weeks, Bryan made an almost frantic attempt, through numerous telephone conversations and meetings with members of the Committee on Classification in Chapel Hill and in New York, to clarify the situation and find out more precisely what steps had to be taken to restore William and Mary to the approved list. It became clear that they saw nothing wrong with William and Mary in Williamsburg; the College was merely suffering the consequences of problems in Norfolk, and of these, the compelling reason for the suspension was Hodges’s conduct, plus the fact that his connection with the division had not been absolutely severed. As Dean Richardson told Bryan in the spring of 1941: “The action of Dr. Hodges was a sin against the Holy Ghost.” In addition, the library at Norfolk certainly needed to be improved, but, according to statements made by Bowles and Richardson to Bryan at a meeting in New York on November 15, the specific preconditions for reinstatement were the complete separation of Hodges from the College and better administrative accountability between Norfolk and Williamsburg.^[88]

The Road to Recovery

On December 1, 1941, Bryan called a special meeting of the faculty at which he announced William and Mary’s suspension by the AAU. He gave only sketchy details of the “irregularities in the administration of the Norfolk Division” leading to Hodges’ s resignation.^[89] Until that time the public had not been informed of the disastrous turn of events. Five days later Bryan released a statement to the press. In it he did what he could to make the best of a bad situation by pointing out that the only cause of complaint had been conditions in the Norfolk Division and that William and Mary remained accredited by other agencies, including the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools. Bryan added that William and Mary had only been suspended, not dropped, by the AAU, but he did not state the reasons for the action.^[90] On December 9 a story in the Flat Hat appeared under a large headline, but it did little more than reprint Bryan’s press release. Its editorial complained that the AAU had refused requests for more information on the grounds that the matter was “confidential.”^[91] Thus, although the public was informed of William and Mary’s suspension, it was given few details about the reasons for it.

Bryan knew, of course, and at a meeting of the Board of Visitors on December 13, 1941, he made it clear that Hodges’s connections with the College had to be severed if William and Mary was to regain its AAU accreditation.^[92] Unfortunately, that was not easily accomplished, given the support that Hodges still enjoyed in some quarters. For example, in a letter to Bohannan, Robert M. Hughes, Jr., warned that “any action against Hodges would be a shameful and outrageous procedure,” as it would violate the “truce” arranged in the spring.^[93] Hodges, in tum, refused to resign until all other reasons for the College’s suspension had been corrected. On February 21, 1942, he even informed Bohannan that he was anxious to return to active work at William and Mary as soon as possible.^[94] Meanwhile Bowles, Pierson, and Richardson assured Bryan that William and Mary would be restored as soon as the Hodges issue was settled. All the other matters were relatively minor.^[95]

The College’s suspension was a painful blow to the members of the faculty in Williamsburg. Deeply aggrieved by what had happened, they considered passing a resolution calling for the removal of Hodges. As Bryan told Bohannan, “the faculty had their whole lives and hearts in the College, and they could not but consider with the utmost attention anything which affected their standing as greatly as the action of Hodges.”^[96] On January 6, 1942, Bryan appointed a special faculty committee to study the suspension. The committee’s report, submitted on March 30, was a useful review of developments at the College since 1934, and it showed how William and Mary in Williamsburg had been strengthened as a liberal arts institution. The obvious conclusion was that regardless of what had happened in Norfolk, William and Mary itself was a separate institution deserving accreditation.^[97]

In the meantime, repercussions from the suspension began to be felt in other areas. On December 17, 1941, the senate of the United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa passed a resolution condemning William and Mary because of the “deplorable procedures and practices” that led to the AAU’s action. It also put off making a decision about accepting William and Mary’s invitation to hold its twenty-first triennial meeting in Williamsburg in 1943, pending a resolution of the accreditation problem. The senate’s action began a long and acrimonious controversy with William and Mary’s Alpha chapter of Phi Beta Kappa.^[98] Another blow came on March 31 with Bryan’s announcement that the American Association of University Women was also removing William and Mary from its list of approved institutions, effective July 1, 1942.^[99] If the damage were to be contained, a final decision on Hodges could not be delayed much longer.

On March 31 Pierson arrived in Williamsburg for yet another conference with Bryan and Dean Miller. He and Richardson spent the next day at the Norfolk Division. Subsequently, Bowles joined them for extended discussions with Dean Hibbs at RPI. This time they reported favorably on developments at Norfolk, and they especially praised Duke’s work there. They also announced that Hibbs had given them a “highly satisfactory statement.” In a final meeting, Bohannan told them that “he had no doubt that the separation with Dr. Hodges would be effected,” either by his resignation or by direct action of the Board. If that were done, they replied, then the Norfolk question would be settled, as long as the College would also make some “definite statement of the extent to which [it] … assumed obligation for the administration of the Norfolk Division.”^[100] A breakthrough came shortly afterwards. On April 8, 1942, Hodges wrote to Bohannan to request retirement on the grounds of ill health. At a meeting three days later, the Board agreed and even granted his request for a retirement allowance beginning April 15, “in recognition of the length of [his] … service and the present state of his health.”^[101] At last, the end of the crisis appeared to be in sight.

Bryan, at least, was satisfied that Hodges’s departure had removed the basic grounds for complaint. At the Board meeting on April 11, he submitted his resignation as president, effective no later than January 1, 1943. Given his age, his health, and the questions that had been raised about his leadership, the move was not wholly unexpected. But Bryan had retained the support and respect of the Board, which “was visibly affected” by his decision, and as a show of respect it elected him to be chancellor of the College, a position that had been vacant since 1881.^[102] Bryan remained as president until the end of the summer, but the accreditation crisis was not finally resolved until after his successor, John E. Pomfret, had assumed office.

Despite Hodges’s departure, numerous details needed to be settled. On May 30 the Board of Visitors adopted a report of a special committee that was intended to clarify the College’s relationship with the Norfolk Division. It reiterated the policy adopted on May 10, 1941, and added, in response to the AAU’s request, a statement to the effect that the division was to be “administered as an integral part of the College of William and Mary at Williamsburg and, as such, be responsible to and under the direction of the administrative officers and the Board of Visitors of the College of William and Mary with respect to curricula, personnel, finances, and other administrative procedure.”^[103] With this statement William and Mary appeared to have met the specific conditions needed for reinstatement. That could not happen before the meeting of the AAU in October, however; in the meantime, another threat appeared. On July 11 the executive secretary of the Southern Association of Colleges and Secondary Schools informed Bryan that it had appointed a special committee to look into conditions at William and Mary, with special reference to the Norfolk Division and the suspension of the College by the AAU. Subsequently, the Southern Association stated that further action by it would depend upon the decision of the AAU regarding reinstatement.^[104]

Pomfret began his duties as president on September 15. His first few weeks were almost completely consumed by work on matters relating to the AAU suspension. On October 21, 1942, he submitted a formal application to the AAU for reinstatement. In it he listed the numerous steps that had been taken to improve conditions at the Norfolk and Richmond Divisions, such as the removal of Hodges, clarification of the relationship of the Norfolk director to the president of William and Mary, salary increases, lower teaching loads, improvements in the libraries, and so forth. Shortly afterwards the AAU’s Committee on Classification recommended that William and Mary be reinstated. On December 12, 1942, the chairman of that committee wrote to Pomfret that the AAU had accepted that recommendation and that William and Mary had finally been restored to the approved list.^[105]

Other related problems could now be resolved. The serious threat of disaccreditation by the Southern Association was ended after Pomfret pleaded the College’s case before that body’s executive committee at a meeting in Memphis on December 1. Given the decision already made by the AAU’s Committee on Classification, the Southern Association’s executive committee decided that no action against William and Mary was then warranted. However, they stated that within the next year, the College should, among other things, obtain Southern Association accreditation as junior colleges for the Norfolk Division and the junior college program of RPI, eliminate certain programs (such as public health nursing) at RPI, and (as a result of the continuing repercussions of the Works Report) reappraise the library in Williamsburg.^[106] The American Association of University Women also restored William and Mary to its approved list, although this step was not taken until its national meeting in July 1943.^[107]

The controversy with the United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa that began with the senate’s resolution of censure on December 17, 1941, was also settled, but it had been a painful, yearlong episode. Members of Alpha chapter had been incensed at what they believed was the precipitate action of the senate, based on an inadequate understanding of the facts. Insisting that they should have had the right to “due notice and an opportunity to be heard” before the vote of censure was taken, in February 1942 they had asked for “as full and specific a statement as possible of the charges against the College as they were presented to the Committee on Qualifications and to the Senate.”^[108] The best they could get was a letter from William A. Shimer, secretary of the United Chapters, dated April 16, that listed the points discussed at the December meeting of the Committee on Qualifications. The only things that the committee had had in writing were some published reports of the AAU’s suspension of William and Mary. It had also had some information based on comments by George A. Works, who was a member of the committee, and on a telephone conversation with Frank H. Bowles concerning Bryan’s “inability to give more attention to the various departments of the College,” the administration at Norfolk, and the nature and quality of the work at Richmond.^[109] A week later Shimer sent another letter which stated that the condition of the library at William and Mary was also discussed, but it had not been “the decisive consideration.”^[110]

On June 11, 1942, Grace Landrum, the vice-president of Alpha chapter, sent a long letter to Shimer reviewing the controversy and defending the position of Alpha chapter and the College. The senate, she complained, had acted largely on hearsay evidence and had not given Alpha chapter a chance to respond to the charges. Its action, she wrote, had ”been hasty, unjustified and in utter non-conformity with the principles of equity.” The remainder of her letter addressed the criticisms of the administration, conditions in Norfolk and Richmond, and the library in Williamsburg. Landrum requested that the letter be sent to the officers of the United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa, to the Committee on Qualifications, and to the senate.^[111] Accompanying her letter was a twenty-nine-page analysis of the Randall Report on the library and a defense of Swem that had been prepared by the executive committee of Alpha chapter.^[112]

Unfortunately, Shimer failed to respond in a manner satisfactory to Alpha chapter. The only good news was his report that the United Chapters would still hold their meeting in Williamsburg in 1943 if William and Mary had been restored to the AAU’s approved list before the meeting of the senate in December 1942.^[113] But the dispute itself remained unsettled until Marjorie Hope Nicolson, the president of the United Chapters, got involved. Writing to Alpha chapter on October 22, she explained that until then she had seen none of the correspondence between it and Shimer. She promised “to make what amends” she could by seeing that all of the points the College chapter had been making were brought to the Committee on Qualifications and to the senate.^[114]

Alpha chapter hoped that the senate would rescind its action of December 17, 1941. Instead, on December 11, 1942, it merely adopted a resolution which noted that the AAU had restored William and Mary to the approved list and expressed “satisfaction with the steps taken towards the improvement of the College.” It also stated “that criticism of the library played no part in the deliberations” that led to the resolution adopted on December 17, 1941, and that the Committee on Qualifications and the senate “had no intention of criticizing adversely an honored member of the William and Mary Chapter.” In addition, Nicolson sent a note to Swem on December 16 expressing her “personal regret that this unfortunate incident ever occurred.”^[115] Although the senate’s resolution was less than the local chapter had hoped for, the time had come to put an end to the painful dispute. At a meeting on June 5, 1943, Alpha chapter adopted a resolution stating that the incident was “considered closed.”^[116]

Finale

The troubles that began with the exposure of the scandals in the Norfolk Division cast a pall over Bryan’s final two years. To have William and Mary’s good name smirched as a result of problems that had nothing directly to do with the College in Williamsburg was a bitter pill to swallow, for him and for other members of the faculty. Understandably, Bryan felt that he could not retire until the restoration of William and Mary to the AAU’s approved list had been accomplished, or was at least assured. Otherwise, he might have left earlier. To a degree, of course, the scandals in Norfolk were a blot on Bryan’s record; the situation certainly strengthened the belief of those who had charged him with being an absentee president who was not firmly in control of his own administration. Others believed, however, that he was largely an innocent victim of circumstances and insisted that those unfortunate problems should not be allowed to overshadow his important contributions as president of William and Mary.

These were indeed significant. On April 11, 1942, at the time he announced his intention to retire, Bryan submitted a report to the Board of Visitors that reviewed his objectives and accomplishments over the previous eight years. He reminded the Board that those who had urged him to accept the presidency shared his view that William and Mary should stress the teaching of liberal arts, and not place major emphasis on the Department of Education. Beyond that broad goal he had had four major objectives:

First. A highly educated and enthusiastic faculty.

Second. A carefully selected and capable student body.

Third. A physical plant adequate for the instruction and well-being of both the faculty and the students.

Fourth. A sound and progressive financial structure.^[117]

Bryan then argued, justifiably, that he had gone a considerable way in achieving all of these objectives.

By the early 1940s, William and Mary certainly had a larger and better-trained faculty, with much higher morale, compared to what it had been at the beginning of the 1930s, thanks in large measure to Bryan’s efforts. Similarly, he had taken the initiative in creating the faculty bylaws of 1938, which meant that the faculty was finally recognized as a corporate, legislative body with certain rights in the running of the College. The process of recruiting a more select student body began before Bryan took over, but he continued and encouraged further progress along those lines. Although his interests were not primarily in building, he oversaw the completion of the physical expansion begun under Chandler and left a well-equipped campus remarkable for its beauty. Finally, by reducing its debt and reorganizing its accounting and financial practices, Bryan helped place the College on a sounder financial footing. Measured by how well he achieved his own professed objectives, Bryan’s presidency must be given high marks.

From the start, however, there were some dissenters who saw Bryan in a different light. They were largely found among outsiders and some alumni, not students and faculty. Usually, their criticisms stemmed from different notions about what William and Mary ought to be. Some questioned his emphasis on liberal arts, believing instead that the College would better serve the state by emphasizing teacher training and other sorts of practical training. Others simply feared that William and Mary might become too selective, or elitist, or intellectual, and that graduates of the old William and Mary would have little in common with this new breed. Such fears were exaggerated. William and Mary was changing, and it was beginning to be recognized as an excellent, small liberal arts college. But it had certainly not been transformed beyond recognition between 1934 and 1942. Then, as later, ideal and reality were widely separated.

Other critics pointed out that Bryan had initiated no new buildings that looked to future development; instead, he had merely overseen the completion of past plans. Given the fact that these were years of depression and then war, it is not clear what other goals could have been realized, even if Bryan had been more interested in physical expansion. Still others faulted Bryan’s managerial style, and accused him of being a part-time president. This was also an exaggeration and may have resulted from the confusion of long hours at a desk with effective academic leadership. Still, the difficulties at Norfolk, and to a lesser extent those at Richmond, did indicate that there had been inadequate oversight of the divisions. Nevertheless, neither the students nor the faculty blamed Bryan for the accreditation crisis.^[118]

Most students and faculty looked back on the Bryan years as a time of fun and excitement and a time of intellectual and cultural growth. Upon his death, on October 16, 1944, the faculty praised Bryan as “a man of vast energy and of many-sided genius. … His kindness, his thoughtfulness, his all-embracing love for the men and women with whom he labored, won our gratitude, affection, and devotion.”^[119] On balance, this was a fitting tribute.^[120]