Oral History Interview
with
MR. FRANCIS N. CRENSHAW

August 25, 1978

by James R. Sweeney
Old Dominion University

Listen to Interview

Crenshaw: The faculty members seemed sort of divided. There was a segment of the faculty that seemed to be more in tune with the authoritative elements of the university such as the Board of Visitors. There was a distinct number of faculty members or part of the faculty that seemed to be apprehensive or suspicious of the Board. I think it was sort of a mirror of the times where a lot of establishment-type activities

2

were being challenged. With respect to the students, there was probably a division here, too. There was more of a voice of lack of cooperation. There was a standing up for what they believed to be rights or that they didn't think were being attended to enough and there was an insistence that the Board and the Administration pay more attention to the interests of the students.

Sweeney: Now back at that first Board meeting that you attended in 1968, a statement was adopted for inclusion in the student and faculty handbooks on riots and unauthorized assemblies. Did you note a genuine concern that perhaps disturbances might occur right here at Old Dominion?

Crenshaw: Well, I think I was like most people in feeling that disasters or serious trouble would occur to someone else, not ourselves. But there was enough of a concern that if such a disturbance might occur that we did meet and discuss ways in which we would handle such a disturbance; and some of the procedures adopted by other schools were reviewed and a sort of a general plan was formulated so that we wouldn't be caught completely unprepared in the event that it did happen. We never really came anywhere close to any such a disturbance, as far as I know.

Sweeney: How did you as a new Board member expand your knowledge of the university?

Crenshaw: I suppose erratically. There was an effort at first, at least made by President Bugg, to indoctrinate the Board members. We

3

were given a lot of reading material and, of course, we were shown around the campus. We had a couple of sessions where his educational philosophy was expounded, and it was very well done. That was not carried out consistently, however. I think that the knowledge of the university really came as a matter of gradual accretion rather than as the result of any particular plan that was implemented.

Sweeney: In 1969, as you know, the college became a university. Rapid change was a characteristic of the 1960's. Do you believe that the college achieved a university status perhaps prematurely?

Crenshaw: No, I don't really think it did. The college grew quickly, and certainly under President Webb it forged ahead and it sought to serve all the needs that were identifiable. Then under President Bugg, there was an effort to consolidate and improve the academic characteristics and strengths of the school. I believe it moved about right, as far as going into the university status. I didn't think it was too soon.

Sweeney: In 1968 the college applied for a federal loan to build a dormitory, but nothing ever came of this effort. Do you know why that was?

Crenshaw: No, I don't really remember. With respect to the loan I do remember the need for the new facilities (additional facilities). My recollection is, and it may be wrong, that the reason that it never received federal assistance is because the federal

4

funds were not available either through the failure of the Congress to appropriate it or restrictions by the Administration on the program. I don't remember exactly which.

Sweeney: You inquired at the October 10, 1968 Board meeting about the lines of communication between students and administration. Were you concerned that perhaps the Webb Administration was not sufficiently sensitive to the students' needs?

Crenshaw: No, I feel this, that there was an apprehension among certain of the students that their needs were not adequately being attended to. I never felt that this was really too much attributable to the Webb Administration because of the extreme accessibility to Lewis Webb himself. He was all over the university and freely visible and reachable. I did feel that with respect to President Bugg the students, at least through the student newspaper, felt that they were not able to communicate adequately with the Administration. I felt that the Board did try to improve that.

Sweeney: Can you recall the budget crisis of 1970? Why did Governor Godwin cut the budget proposed for ODU in that biennium so severely?

Crenshaw: I don't recall exactly why. My impression is that at those earlier days the funding of Old Dominion was relegated among the lowest priority among the state-supported institutions of higher education. I think that it was a percentage matter, and when you don't have anything, you need more than a percentage

5

increase in order to make your programs work. Old Dominion needed a substantial (gross) increase in its funding which later it did get, but not by any percentage method. I think that's really where the budget crunch originated.

Sweeney: Did the Board play any part in the famous "Save ODU" campaign back in 1970?

Crenshaw: The Board didn't really instigate that campaign. It was pleased that the students and those supportive of the university felt strongly enough about it to go to Richmond and to make the efforts that they did. Actually, I think that the Board felt that a little lower profile might be more productive in the Virginia General Assembly since it's such a conservative organization. Certainly, the enthusiasm that that movement evidenced was warmly received by the Board.

Sweeney: Did you personally lobby with the legislature or any of your colleagues that you know of lobby with the legislature for a larger budget appropriation for ODU?

Crenshaw: Yes, we talked to members of the General Assembly in the Appropriations Committee and to the Governor himself trying to get money for Old Dominion, and a number of our friends did the same.

Sweeney: Do you think that it had a good effect?

Crenshaw: Yeah, I think it helped. There again, it's sort of a slow process, but I think that the combination of these efforts and more information and probably improved Administration and the maturing of the school, all sort of combined to get the additional money.

6

Sweeney: That's how it was resolved. We've covered the next question. Now my next question will be about something that hasn't been mentioned for years but it was mentioned a great deal when I first came to Old Dominion back in 1971 and '72. Could you tell me about the Mayhew Report issued in the spring of '71? First of all, what was the background of the report?

Crenshaw: No response.

Sweeney: The next question now concerns the policy on student discipline procedures. This was adopted in 1970, and I wondered if you played a major role in the development of this policy during this year of your service on the Board?

Crenshaw: I think I participated in the development of the procedures. I don't know whether it would be fair to say that I played a major role because my recollection was that there were others who were working more directly on the Student Affairs committees. My participation was probably in meeting with them and talking about suggestions which perhaps they had formulated.

Sweeney: I wondered if the adoption of this policy was the result more of unrest on other campuses than any situation at ODU?

Crenshaw: Yeah, I think that's a fair question because there really wasn't more than a very small minority of people who were actively agitating or causing any particular problem at Old Dominion. It was part of things that you read about in the press or saw on the television or heard on the radio; and it was an extension of the larger feeling, I think, that

7

developed during the 1960's more than anything that really happened at Old Dominion.

Sweeney: In 1970 you discussed a series of proposed Board of Visitors seminars with the members of the Board. What was the purpose of these seminars?

Crenshaw: The purpose of the seminars was to educate more broadly or deeply the members of the Board in the university. They never really developed to the extent that I was interested in seeing happen. I had always felt that if the Board members were deeply involved in the educational purposes and understood them better that they would be more active and they would be better Board members. It seemed difficult in getting the Administration to take a lead in this. So we didn't really do very much in this direction.

Sweeney: Did you have a few of them? Did they ever become a reality?

Crenshaw: My recollection is that one of the sessions we had with Jim Bugg was the first of those seminars. I think we had about three and they were very interesting and I thought very useful, but they were not pursued. I think the Administration probably was doubtful as to how valuable they were.

Sweeney: In 1969 the Board adopted a policy whereby two students and two faculty representatives would attend the Board meetings. They would advise and consult with the Board on matters concerning their respective constituencies. The first question on this, was the Board apprehensive about this policy? Did they have certain specific fears about its implementation?

8

Crenshaw: I think the Board did have a mild apprehension about it. I think what it was is when you invite someone to participate in your discussions they generally like you to take action that they agree with. I think the Board felt that by inviting the students or the faculty representatives there might be more contentious matters developed, but I think that those fears turned out to be totally without any foundation. Both the student representatives and the faculty representatives were very helpful. They helped us in communicating with the students and with the faculty. I think it benefited the Board and the university both and I think it's a very good policy.

Sweeney: Now I would like to ask you several general questions about your six years of dedicated service as the Rector of the Board. First, when you were selected as Rector of the Board, what did you believe to be the responsibilities of that position?

Crenshaw: Well, I suppose that the Rector is the person that has to, well, first run the Board meetings. He has to organize the Board to try to make it function effectively, make committee appointments, and try to sort of set a direction for the Board to move (in which the Board should move). You have a responsibility of either bringing up or failing to bring up questions which the Board might consider. I think those were really what turned out to be the position. It gives you an opportunity to try to affect a leadership role in relating,

9

in liaison maybe, between the Administration and the Board, and between the university and the community in general.

Sweeney: Would you say your expectations of the responsibilities of this position were confirmed?

Crenshaw: Yeah, I think so. I think that the main difference between the expectation and the actual experience was probably the amount of detail and the number of possibilities which you might be able to do something if you only had the time to do it.

Sweeney: Leaving proper names aside, of course, did you discover that some Board members took their responsibilities more seriously than others, that is, that some came better prepared to meetings and displayed more enthusiasm and concern for the university?

Crenshaw: Well, I think that's true with almost any group of people and I think it was true with our Board.

Sweeney: Did you have any problems with personality conflicts on the Board and, if so, how did you attempt to resolve them?

Crenshaw: We really had very little personality [conflicts] among the members of the Board. There was a little bit and you just tried to soft-pedal those things which caused a high level of conflict and not push people in the corner. I think that by and large we got along in a very harmonious manner.

Sweeney: As Rector of the Board, would you discuss the relationship between the university and the city of Norfolk during those years? Did the city continue to make a substantial contribution to the development of the university?

10

Crenshaw: I would think the relationship between the university and the city was one of the areas in which I felt that we did a poor job. There was not a warm interrelationship between our Administration and the city staff. The Council, itself, was going through a troublesome time. It wasn't easy to have a warm, friendly relationship primarily, very partially, because of the problems that each of the entities was having, the city in its government and also the university. I think the city did make a contribution to the development of the university but not as substantial a contribution as it might have made under better circumstances.

Sweeney: Were you satisfied with the press coverage which the university received in the Norfolk newspapers -- The Virginian-Pilot and the Ledger Star?

Crenshaw: Yes, I think we had fine coverage in the papers.

Sweeney: Could you comment on the committee structure of the Board of Visitors and whether or not it was effective during your tenure?

Crenshaw: I think the committee structure was probably all right. Some of the appointments, which was my fault, were probably not the best, and probably because of that it might not have been as effective as it could have been. Generally, I would think it was adequate.

Sweeney: A final general question: during your years on the Board, did the university improve its standings with the state legislature? If so, how did this beneficial change come about?

11

Crenshaw: Well, I think it primarily came about by virtue of some of the things I mentioned before - a higher quality of administrative presentation of facts to the Budget Bureau and to the General Assembly, a better and more thorough presentation to our local delegates, a sustained explanation of the university's situation to the local governmental leaders and the business leaders and just a persistent effort by a whole lot of people combined with a very satisfactory growth and development of the university itself.

Sweeney: Now I would like to address several topics which were of major concern to the Board in the early 1970's. There have been allegations that the neighborhood to the south of the campus (that is, Lambert's Point), which is, of course, an overwhelmingly black neighborhood, was not treated fairly as the university expanded. For example, supplements were available to the purchase price of dwellings bought by the Redevelopment and Model City projects; however, no supplements were available for the owners of property bought for the university. At one Board meeting you remarked that "in the interest of good public relations this should be called to the attention of the Governor to see what action the state might take." Two questions here - did the state take any action and do you believe the neighborhood residents were fairly treated?

Crenshaw: Let me answer those two in reverse. I think the neighborhood

12

residents were fairly treated under the applicable laws. For example, the acquisition of property for the expansion of Old Dominion campus was done under a redevelopment project at a time where no relocation benefits were available to anyone. Accordingly, the people who were left in Lambert's Point or caused to move there did not receive any supplemental payments because they were not authorized at the time the move was made. Subsequently, for example, in connection with the expansion of Norfolk State College, redevelopment activity did take place. By that time, the Uniform Property Acquisition and Relocation Payments Act had been passed by the Congress which provided for the payment of relocation supplements. Accordingly, the people who were forced to move for Norfolk State College expansion did receive relocation benefits. That was not a matter that one group was treated in a discriminatory fashion, but it's simply that the state of the law improved so as to permit the payments by the time of the second acquisition. Now with respect to the state action, the state didn't take any action to make payments to the people in Lambert's Point. But the state General Assembly did pass a law which very closely paralleled the federal law providing for relocation payments. Unfortunately, the people had already had to move by the time that act was passed. So they really didn't get any benefit out of it.

Sweeney: In 1970 the Board approved guidelines for faculty and student exchange with Norfolk State College. Now the emphasis there

13

that I am placing is 1970 and here it is eight years later. It seems that this exchange program did not succeed. Why in your opinion did the institutions fail to cooperate more closely during this period?

Crenshaw: Well, I think part of the answer is time. This whole question of segregation or desegregation and elimination of discrimination is a painfully slow process. During the early 1970's Norfolk State College was being run by a president whose stated purpose was to build the best black college in the country, and there wasn't any desire for any integration. At the same time, the Administration at Old Dominion was not eagerly seeking a cooperative effort. Accordingly, most of the plans for faculty and student exchange ran into small mechanical problems which made it ineffective - I think primarily because the leadership of the two institutions wasn't ready to affirmatively press support.

Sweeney: At the December 1970 meeting of the Board you asked the members of the Board to consider ways to gather opinions on the directions Old Dominion University should take, what its goals and objectives should be also. Did this request lead to the development of the university mission statement adopted by the Board in 1971?

Crenshaw: Well, I don't know whether it actually led to the university mission statement, but it was a part of a stream of events that ended up there. There were a number of discussions about

14

what we were trying to do. This was one of the things that I felt the Board ought to decide, and when I became Rector I tried to focus attention on the definition of what our goals and objectives were. The President also was trying to work in that direction. So, a combination of a number of people's efforts, I think, did lead to the development of the mission statement.

Sweeney: What was your opinion of the Board's campus visitation program which was initiated in the early 1970's?

Crenshaw: If my memory is correct, this was where we invited others to come from the community onto the campus.

(Sweeney: The Board member seemed to come onto the campus.) Okay, then, this was an effort on our part to speed up the indoctrination of Board members. I felt right straight along that the education of Board members was deficient - that we ought to learn more about the university and more quickly. I remember I recalled a custom we had when I was on the Norfolk City School Board. We would visit the schools periodically, and this was an idea that we would bring members of the Board to particular parts of the campus and we would have an explanation of what was going on. I think it was spotty; parts of it were very good and parts of it were poor. In general, I think it was part of an effort which might have been worthwhile but it didn't pan out as well as we had hoped.

Sweeney: Your meeting with the students as part of this campus visitation in February of 1972 made the front page in the Mace and Crown,

15

and the Mace and Crown reporter described it as "stormy." The students were extremely discontented over such issues as bookstore profits and so forth. I wondered if you believed that this discontent was symptomatic of an underlying discontent with the whole Administration of the university?

Crenshaw: In the first place, there weren't a whole lot of people that were involved in this "stormy" meeting. But the people that were involved were sort of the leaders of the discontent movement. I do believe that there was an underlying discontent with the Administration in the sense that they felt the Administration was autocratic and it did not communicate well with the students. The bookstore is a favorite whipping boy of most anyone who is seeking for something to criticize in the university - because in most universities an entity like the bookstore is about the only activity which permits raising some funds which can be used in the discretion of the Administration without rigid compliance with the state allocation procedures. People who didn't understand that or didn't sympathize with that would use the bookstore as a whipping boy and were very suspicious of it. I think that this action was symptomatic of an underlying discontent, but I don't believe it was a broad discontent. I believe it was the discontent of a particular minority.

Sweeney: The Board of Visitors displayed a deep profound interest in the honor system as it operated at ODU. This was especially

16

evident at the April 1973 meeting when the Board called for an effective, revitalized student-run honor system. Do you personally believe the Board's aspirations were realized in that matter?

Crenshaw: (First words of answer were not recorded.) ...the responsibility of running such a program. So I think that part of the aspirations were realized but not fully.

Sweeney: In retrospect, do you believe that it was wise for the university to undertake doctoral level programs in such fields as engineering and oceanography in view of the level of funding by the state and also because after a few years it seems that both of these programs are producing very few Ph.D.'s.

Crenshaw: Well, it's hard to say. The doctoral programs in engineering and in oceanography at this location, I think, encourage a lot of higher quality work at the bachelor's degree and at the master's degree. I think that they have had an indirect positive effect on the university. Now whether or not it was dollar effective to have done this at the time it was done I don't know. I believe if I were to make the decision again I would vote the same way I did when it came up.

Sweeney: At the October 11, 1973, meeting you expressed the hope that more intangible matters might be brought before the Board in the future, rather than administrative problems only. Could you explain this request?

Crenshaw: Yes, this was probably symptomatic of a dissatisfaction or

17

an unrest among the members of the Board of Visitors. It seemed to be a hard thing for the Administration, for Dr. Bugg, to bring to the Board questions of policy for decision. Rather, it seemed that the things that were discussed were concrete decisions relating closely to administrative problems. I felt that in order for the Board members to become really enthusiastic about the university and to really work well for it they had to be caught up in some of the excitement of the university. That comes with the involvement with the intangible benefits and aspirations and ideas that pervade a growing university. I felt that this was something that the Board should be involved in as much as possible.

Sweeney: You've already mentioned lobbying. Did it become commonplace for you to go to the legislature every year to talk to them about the funding?

Crenshaw: Yes, we would go. The main liaison between the university and the General Assembly was done by Dave Shufflebarger and Harold Eickhoff and Jim Bugg. But we would go (we being the members of the Finance Committee or Vice-Rector or myself) would go from time to time. We would talk to the Governor or the members of the General Assembly when the situation presented itself.

Sweeney: Although the question of a Naval ROTC unit at Old Dominion was studied by the Board, no such unit was ever created,

18

and many times people mention that as a rather unusual situation in view of the university's location. Why is it that there was no action on this question?

Crenshaw: I don't really remember. I don't believe the availability of a unit was ever voted on. It may be that we couldn't get one, but I'm just not sure. I know that we talked about increasing the training aboard ship. Also, there was a time when the military training units, like the Naval Reserve or the Army training, at universities was unpopular, but I really don't think that that was the reason. I just don't really recall.

Sweeney: In February 1975 you asked the student observers of the Board to report student problems to the Board prior to demonstrating or talking with the press. Did you have any specific instances of precipitate action by the students in mind?

Crenshaw: I'm sure I did but I don't remember what they were. My recollection was that there was some problem that the students had that they carried to the press before they brought it to the Board, and I asked them to reverse that procedure because there was no way we could act on it until we knew what the problem was. But I can't remember what it was at this time.

THE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 28 - 38 HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED AT THIS POINT IN THE TRANSCRIPTION BECAUSE OF THE CONFIDENTIAL NATURE OF THE MATERIAL. THESE QUESTIONS AND THE RESPONSES TO THEM HAVE BEEN TRANSCRIBED SEPARATELY, AND THAT TRANSCRIPTION MUST REMAIN CLOSED FOR A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE INTERVIEW. [Available below.]

19

Sweeney: You performed another act of selfless dedication to the university by serving as Chairman of the Presidential Search Committee which chose Dr. Alfred Rollins to succeed Dr. Bugg. The following questions concern the search process. In general, could you evaluate the performance of the Presidential Search Committee?

Crenshaw: Well, I think the evaluation probably ends up in the ultimate selection, and I think Dr. Rollins was a good selection. I've been pleased with what he has apparently done since he's taken over. So, I think that's one factor of it. With respect to the performance in the more technical sense, I think the Search Committee performed really remarkably. It was a diversified group and it showed remarkable objectivity and fairness. Although we had discussions to some depth and with firmness, no one ever lost sight of the fact they were trying to perform an important function. I think that the individuals performed really tremendously well.

Sweeney: The committee consisted of four Board members, two faculty members, one administrator, and one student. Do you believe that this composition was effective in putting together a workable committee?

Crenshaw: Well, sort of like I've indicated in the last answer, yes, I do. It was, I think, a good balance.

Sweeney: It seems to me that the committee consisted of some strong-minded, hard-headed individualists. How did you lead such

20

a group? How did you keep the search process from bogging down?

Crenshaw: Well, I don't know if there is a real answer to how you do lead it. We tried to keep our sense of humor about us and we tried not to let individual preferences go too far, although we did try to give everybody an opportunity to be heard. I think the way we kept it going was that we set out a timetable and, through John Weese's help primarily and his marvelous secretary, the mechanical work of collecting the data and putting it into shape that it could be reviewed by the committee was accomplished. I think that each person on the committee felt a very strong responsibility to do their part and they did it. That's really what kept us from bogging down.

Sweeney: How did you deal with the faculty's concern over insufficient representation on the Search Committee? This was especially expressed by the so-called Ad Hoc Committee of Full Professors.

Crenshaw: Well, what we did was talk to them. I met with them and I appeared before a meeting of their group, explained what we were trying to do and tried to explain that we were trying to be as fair as we could but that the Board had a basic obligation which was being assisted by representatives from certain sectors. I think eventually they bought that.

Sweeney: Could you tell me how the Board of Visitors wrote up the so-called "Profile of the New President" which was intended

21

to provide some guidance and direction to the committee?

Crenshaw: I think the way it happened was I asked the Vice-Rector and Mr. Everhart and probably other members of the Board (probably everybody) to list qualities which they felt the new president should possess. They did that and then we put them together. I think that it was interesting in one way that it contained a prevention of the weaknesses that we had thought we had seen in Dr. Bugg. It contained some other things which we hoped maybe to get in a new person. It was from a consensus of ideas that the Board members had and which were then put together in one statement.

Sweeney: Why was the Presidential Search Committee so concerned with the problem of security - to the point that they imposed a so-called "gag" rule on the members?

Crenshaw: The main reason the committee was concerned with security is that the best applicants that we had would not be applicants if the word got out that they were interested. For example, we might have a highly successful vice-president at another university - and we did have just this sort of thing - who was interested in talking with us and in interviewing for the job, but if it ever became public he would disavow it immediately because he was very well happy with what he had up to the point of knowing that he had a new position. So, in order to get good candidates, you cannot allow it to be a matter of public knowledge. Now the run-of-the-mill candidates or the poorer candidates are delighted with the

22

publicity. It sort of gives them a boost. But the better people that we had were very shy of any potential publicity. So we tried our best to protect them from it.

Sweeney: Did the Presidential Search Committee maintain open lines of communication with the university community, especially in view of the search committee's concern for security?

Crenshaw: Well, we tried to be within the limitations that I mentioned before. For instance, the faculty members were asked to communicate with their constituents, the dean was asked to communicate with his, and the student with his. Also, the Board members would report periodically to the other members of the Board. But those reports in that communication necessarily were general in nature and did not deal with any particular candidate or any type of candidate.

Sweeney: The committee had some problems with the local press, I recall. Marvin Lake, a reporter for The Virginian-Pilot, seemed to be especially troublesome. I was wondering, how did he obtain his information about the secret Board deliberations and did he cause the committee any particular embarrassment?

Crenshaw: Well, I don't know how he obtained his information. I may have some ideas but I don't really know. So, I better not try to answer that one. As far as causing the committee any particular embarrassment, I don't really think he did. He was trying to do his job as a reporter, and we were trying

23

to do ours as a Search Committee, and they were simply in diametrically opposed positions, but I think it worked out all right.

Sweeney: Did he publicize that a local Admiral was interested in the position? I remember that was a problem at one time.

Crenshaw: Well, I think it was -- I think there was speculation that a well known former prisoner of war was being considered. That's the kind of thing that had been a serious contention and had he been interested, that's the kind of report that might very well have chilled our opportunity to obtain him. As it turned out it was nothing but idle speculation.

Sweeney: The committee received 265 applications for the Presidency of ODU. What procedure did you follow in eliminating unqualified applicants?

Crenshaw: There was a screening of all of the applicants. They were taken in batches and we would have a meeting to consider, say, 30 applications or 50 applications. There would be a preliminary recommendation generally by the secretary, which was Dean Weese or myself or some other person who had done the initial screening of the applications, to reject those which seemed the most marginal or the most obviously unqualified. Each of us would then read over the application and then we would have a meeting and we would vote on the elimination. In that way we reduced the number down to about 50. When we got to 50 we then had a different level of consideration.

24

Then we eventually developed two lists, one of ten which we felt were top priority and another ten which we felt were the very next to that. Then we went after those people with the idea of having personal interviews with as many of them as we could.

Sweeney: Why did the Presidential Search Committee decide to go to New York City to interview eight candidates there?

Crenshaw: It turned out that we had three candidates, I believe, in the state of Virginia (three or four) and they could be interviewed locally within a day's trip. So we did that. We had another group that were taken from the two groupings of ten that I mentioned above. They were located in an arc that swung from New Jersey through the New England states (including in that New York and Pennsylvania) and then around as far west as Cleveland and Illinois. So it seemed that the most central location for those people would be New York City. So we decided that rather than our going to all of these various campuses which would be a very expensive and also terribly time consuming way to work it, we would set up a headquarters in New York and invite them to come in. And that's what we did. We took rooms in the hotel in New York and then we invited the prospective candidates to come in over a three-day period. In this way we set up a procedure so that Dr. Weese would meet with the prospective candidate for about an hour or an hour and a half and give him a

25

preliminary briefing on the university. It would have some basic statistics and a profile of the university and try to advise as much as he could on what it was like, answer any questions and get him on a factual basis. Then the candidate would come in to the whole group including Dr. Weese and we would then interview him, and this was carried on beginning Thursday night and all day Friday and all day Saturday and one Sunday morning, and then we came back to Norfolk. It was a very time consuming and sort of exhausting procedure but it was intensely interesting. The people that we talked to were all involved in urban universities. They had a lot of very fine ideas about how a university ought to be run and particularly an urban university, and it was a tremendous learning experience for the members of the Board and also for the other members of the Search Committee.

Sweeney: What was your personal reaction to Dr. Alfred Rollins when he was interviewed by the Search Committee?

Crenshaw: Well, I remember my initial reaction to Dr. Rollins was one of relief. We met him at a time when for some reason or another the Board was tired and we seemed sort of flat. I was having a difficult time getting the interview going, and Dr. Rollins seemed to understand that and sort of took over and led the conversation until we sort of caught our breath or energy again, and the interview proceeded very nicely.

26

Sweeney: The Board's initial charge to the Search Committee asked them to submit three to five names of acceptable candidates to the Board. In the final analysis the Search Committee had only one name to recommend, Dr. Alfred Rollins, because Dr. Edmund Cranch of Cornell University withdrew his name after his visit to the campus. I would like to ask two questions in regard to this. First, why did Dr. Cranch withdraw after the Search Committee recommended him?

Crenshaw: I, of course, don't know why Dr. Cranch withdrew his name exactly. I think that Dr. Cranch had a very splendid position at Cornell University. He was Dean of the Engineering School with a very prestigious organization and extremely adequate funding to do what he wanted to do. He was well connected with the community. In other words, he liked all aspects of his work. I think that he became interested in the situation at Old Dominion perhaps through acquaintance with Dr. Weese. I believe that probably Old Dominion just wasn't quite developed enough for him. He was very much of an establishment person and in a very established position. Probably we just had more problems than he wanted to take on, but he never articulated this. These are my own thoughts.

Sweeney: Do you believe that the committee carried out its responsibility even though only one name was recommended?

Crenshaw: Well, naturally I think it did or probably I would have voted some other way. The initial charge to the Search Committee,

27

you must remember, came from a Board of which, of course, I was a member and the titular head, that had never done this before. We took a lot of information about how to look for a president. We spent months doing it. It started probably in November when we started writing out for vitae on various candidates. We carried it out all through the spring until we were down at the end of the school year. And we felt we had been through a very substantial number of people, many of whom were very well qualified, and we felt that we had the best one coming down. So I think the committee felt that it had indeed carried out its responsibility even though there was only one name which was recommended.

Sweeney: Would you care to mention any member or members of the committee who were especially hardworking and selfless in their dedication to their responsibilities in the search process?

Crenshaw: Well, I would just like to say this. I think everybody worked particularly hard. I think really that John Weese and his secretary, Clarice (Mrs. Lubchenco) were probably especially hardworking and selfless. But everyone did much more than you would have expected them to do, and it wouldn't be fair to say that anyone did more than anybody else.

Sweeney: Returning for the last few questions to the everyday concerns of the Board, I would like to have your opinion of the Academic Opportunity Program which caused considerable controversy during the latter years of Dr. Bugg's presidency.

28

Crenshaw: I think the Academic Opportunity Program itself was O.K. I think it was used wrong and it was certainly represented badly by Dr. Bugg or his staff. I think the controversy arose from a feeling that it was being misrepresented. So the idea of trying to take people who ostensibly couldn't make it in college and giving them a chance to make it with additional work was fine. But the problem with it was that we thought it was being used to bolster numbers which would then result in more funding and that was caused by the State Budget Office insistence on funding in relation to numbers. I disagree very heartily with the State Budget Office program, but still that's the way it was. I think that there was some misrepresentation of the program by the Administration.

Sweeney: Could you recall the proposal for the establishment of the Iranian Naval Academy on campus? How did this proposal come about and why was it that the Academy never became a reality?

Crenshaw: Well, I think the reason it never became a reality is because the Iranians never made a firm proposal. It seemed at the beginning to be an exciting international activity which would bring real benefits to the university, both in a cultural mix and in a physical improvement. For instance, it appeared that an academic building might be built by the Iranians which would become the property of the university and under circumstances which would not weaken our academic program. As we

29

sought assurance that the program wouldn't hurt the academic quality of the program, the Iranians became more and more vague, and it just simply never gelled as far as from their standpoint.

Sweeney: Looking back over your eight years on the Board, could you tell me what accomplishments pleased you the most and were there any major disappointments?

Crenshaw: Well, I think that the things that left me with the feeling of satisfaction were the obvious development of the university, the academic accomplishments, the basketball program, the improvement of the mall which was so tremendously aided by George and Linda Kaufman, the physical development and maturity of the school; all of those made you feel good. As far as any particular significant thing, I hope that the naming of the new president was a good thing. That will be borne out as time goes by. I think that it was a disappointment that we weren't able to work out a cooperative arrangement with Jim Bugg so that we wouldn't have had to ask for his resignation. Probably that was the major disappointment that I had.

Sweeney: The last questions that I would like to ask concern your letter of June 10, 1976, which was in a sense your farewell to the Board. Of course, it is reprinted in the Board minutes for that meeting. I would appreciate it if you would elaborate upon your comments in regard to encouraging active participation by Board members in the discussion of policy matters.

30

Crenshaw: Well, I think we've touched two or three times on my concern about the things that Board members discuss at Board meetings. There are a number of more or less mechanical things that have to be done in order to run the university. Budgets have to be approved, and I don't mean that a budget is a mechanical thing, but the way it gets approved sometimes develops to be that. Professors have to be hired, and it's all done in great numbers with very little insight as to the people that are involved. There are a number of actions that the Board has to take which are almost by rote. They are prepared by the Administration and they are more or less presumed accurate. In fact, you could hardly ever find out anything except that. They do not touch on the quality of what a university is, and I felt that, if the Board could be involved in matters or ideas which were of the fiber that made a university distinct, that it would be of great benefit. They are the things that excite a Board member. If you are teaching something better than anybody else, or if you are going into a new field or if you are trying to solve problems that are not otherwise addressed, those things are the sort of policy matters that the Board ought to be considering. Under an enlightened president, I think, they would consider that, but I felt that we were not given much of an opportunity to think about that sort of thing during the Bugg Administration.

Sweeney: Could you discuss the benefits provided by the retreats which you mentioned in that letter.

31

Crenshaw: Well, the retreats were the time when these subjects that I just mentioned were discussed. For example, we had a retreat at Virginia Beach in which we discussed the mission of the university. There we had a lot of very well informed and intelligent faculty members and others that spoke about the various aspects of what the university might be doing and what direction it might be going. There you had some in-depth exchange of ideas that I thought was exciting. Also, they would go into the night, and the people got to know each other better. The faculty members got to understand a little bit better what a Board was and vice versa. Consequently, I think, there were really lasting benefits by this communication.

Sweeney: Could you also explain what you meant by the desirability of encouraging "central themes or activities" which would foster a closer relationship between the university and its students.

Crenshaw: Well, I think that what I mean there stems from the fact that Old Dominion is not a residential college or university. It has a commuter constituency. For instance, its basketball program, I think, is a central theme or activity which does foster a close relationship between the university and its students. I think that sports are an obvious factor. I think the art programs are obvious factors. Excellence in any field -- education, School of Education or any of the other fields -- would become the same sort of thing. So those things which require the presence of the students on the campus and make

32

that a pleasurable experience are the things that I was speaking about.

Sweeney: Do you believe that your hopes for the inter-institutional cooperation of colleges and universities in Tidewater are being realized currently?

Crenshaw: Well, it seems to me that they are. I hear very good things as between the cooperation between Norfolk State College and Old Dominion. I think that the Consortium seems to be working well. I'm not as well informed now as I once was, but it seems to me that that is happening.

Sweeney: How do you perceive the university's relationship with the General Assembly today?

Crenshaw: Well, I think the university in a way made its mark in the sense that it is now accepted without much question as a university, not a college. I think that its funding level has been moved up. I think it still should be moved further. I think basically the university is well regarded by the General Assembly, and I think that the condition there is pretty healthy.

Sweeney: Lastly, I was most interested in your comments in regard to the university's relationship with the city of Norfolk. How can you reconcile your emphasis on the university's relationship with the city of Norfolk with the often repeated regional mission of the university?

Crenshaw: Well, I think really the mission of the city of Norfolk has

33

a regional aspect also. Basically what I feel is that the university is situated in Norfolk. It is most directly affected by Norfolk, and Norfolk is very directly affected by the university, and I feel that a concerted effort should be made by the Administration and by all connected with the university to keep those ties as close as possible. There are a lot of ways in which the expertise of the university could be made available to solve problems that are being encountered. I think that that is being done, but it is not being done quite as much as I would like to see it. So it is sort of an increasing of the cooperative aspects between the two that I am trying to encourage.

Sweeney: Thank you very much, Mr. Crenshaw.

TRANSCRIPT OF RESTRICTED PORTION

OF ORAL HISTORY INTERVIEW WITH

MR. FRANCIS CRENSHAW

Questions 28-36

Sweeney: At a special meeting of the Board on January 25, 1975, you as Rector asked President Bugg to prepare a program on three topics to be presented to the Board at the March meeting. The Board members were asked to submit three topics to the Secretary. President Bugg would select from that list the items for discussion at the March meeting. At that meeting all of the members' suggestions for priority matters were placed in the Minutes. One of Mr. Everhart's suggestions was to "plan for a turn-over or roll-over of administrative personnel including the President. Develop a plan to deal with the problem." Two questions in connection with this. First of all, what was the purpose that the Board had in formulating this agenda of priorities for the President to address? Second, was Mr. Everhart's suggestion an early indication of the Board's dissatisfaction with President Bugg's stewardship?

Crenshaw: Well, I think this was a part of the effort which had gone back to the time of the beginning of President Bugg's

2

administration when we had tried to develop an indoctrination program for the Board members or a visitation program for the Board members and had tried to... like the comment made earlier about discussing intangibles, we were trying to get a discussion at Board meetings of matters which were of some substance, not simply voting on, shall we say, pre-cooked or pre-digested agenda items that were very perfunctory. And we couldn't seem to get the President to do this. So that was why we made the specific recommendation. Now with respect to Mr. Everhart's suggestion as being an early indication of the Board's dissatisfaction with President Bugg, I think it might well have been. I think also, in fairness, Mr. Everhart was a very good student of administration, and right from the beginning of his service on the Board, one of the things he advocated was a plan to deal with presidential succession. I consciously delayed consideration of this because I did feel there was substantial dissatisfaction with President Bugg, and I felt that we wouldn't be dealing with it objectively but we would be dealing with it with respect to the current President, and I felt it was premature to do that.

Sweeney: For the historical record will you explain in some detail why the Board of Visitors chose to remove Dr. James L. Bugg, Jr., from the presidency of Old Dominion University?

3

Crenshaw: Well, like most problems, [long pause] well, with respect to the decision to remove Dr. Bugg, I think it was a gradual development in that the Board really wasn't comfortable with Dr. Bugg. It was difficult to communicate with him. He seemed to have difficulties communicating with the students and with the faculty. And there would be problems resulting from that lack of communication. I think the Board became concerned about his administrative ability because he was very reluctant to delegate a matter. He did not seem to have confidence in his staff or those for whom he was working. And so a number of things never were accomplished primarily because they also sat at the President's desk. There was difficulty in efforts to expand the contacts between the university and the community. The President seemed to create hostilities, for example, with the officials of the city of Norfolk rather than a warm, cordial relationship. As far as fund raising was concerned, he was not well adapted to that. But I will have to say that I believe when the former Board selected Dr. Bugg he was told that he would not have to do fund raising work. I believe that our Board did not fault him for his disinclination to do that. But the Board in a lot of small ways evidenced dissatisfaction in the administration of the university and in the communication between the Board and the President and between the President

4

and his constituency. It just kept on to a point where it seemed to become intolerable, and we elected to remove him.

Sweeney: How did you personally evaluate Dr. Bugg's performance as President?

Crenshaw: Well, I think Dr. Bugg's personal integrity was above any reproach. I think he was a student, a scholar. I think he was a leader in the academic world. I think he was strong and he made tough decisions. I think that those things he performed well. I think he was not the outgoing diplomat that you need as a college President, and probably that's the area in which his weakness was most apparent.

Sweeney: Did the members of the Board sense a growing hostility and suspicion among the various constituencies of the university community toward Dr. Bugg?

Crenshaw: Yes, there was a gradually increasing number of instances in which either faculty or administration or student or community interests were, it seems, at odds with Dr. Bugg.

Sweeney: Did the members of the Board, especially those who objected most strenuously to Dr. Bugg's style of leadership, ever attempt to discuss this problem with him?

Crenshaw: On several occasions. We had two specific meetings with Dr. Bugg in which we were very candid. A number of us tried formally and informally to explain what the problem was, but

5

it was simply a matter of style, I suppose. He's a very fine man, but he wasn't the type of President that that particular Board wanted.

Sweeney: Would you say that the announcement of Dr. Bugg's resignation was the most difficult task you had to perform as Rector of the Board?

Crenshaw: Without any question.

Sweeney: The Board was criticized, sometimes rather harshly, especially in the Virginian-Pilot, for the manner in which it relieved Dr. Bugg of his duties. Do you think the criticism was fair?

Crenshaw: No, I thought the press was very unfair. My earlier comment about the fairness of the press or the treatment that the university got in the press, I would have to say I didn't think they were very reasonable in this particular instance. The problem was that they wanted a personal attack. They wanted the Board to specify what was wrong with Dr. Bugg, and no purpose would have been served by that. So we never made any statement of what the problem was. So perhaps not having any statement to work on, the press did the only thing it could. They never seemed to recognize what we were trying to achieve, which was that there be no public attack on Dr. Bugg.

Sweeney: Was not the timing of the action especially unfortunate, that is, just at the start of the academic year right after Dr. Bugg's speech which formally inaugurated the '75-'76 academic year?

6

Crenshaw: Yes, I suppose it was unfortunate. There isn't any good time for doing that. I think the timing of it was affected by virtue of a leak of information that one of the Board members made to the press. We had discussed it with Dr. Bugg, and the announcement could well have been deferred until slightly later in the year, and the arrangements for his succession handled much more gracefully with the exception of the fact that one of the Board members apparently contacted the press. From that time there was no way to adjust the timing. It had to be told at that moment.

Sweeney: So he did know when he made that speech inaugurating the new academic year. He already knew that he was going to have to leave the position.

Crenshaw: I don't remember that.

Sweeney: I remember he said he was surprised.

Crenshaw: I know he expressed surprise. My problem is I don't remember the sequence of events, that is, the date we met to make a decision, the date we announced it, and the date that he made his talk. My recollection is that the talk was made a little before these other events which happened in a span of about a week. I think Jim was surprised that we did what we did, although I don't see how he could have been except that was his nature. He just never really understood what we were talking about.

7

Sweeney: As Rector of the Board you had to perform the melancholy task of informing Dr. Bugg of the Board's decision. Could you recall any salient points from that hour-long meeting?

Crenshaw: No, I remember it was a very sad and hard meeting. Jim took it very well. As I say, he was surprised. He asked whether or not the Board would reconsider. I told him that the Board had been very deliberate about its making a decision, and I didn't think it would do any good. Other than that I just have an impression that it was a very hard thing to do, but I think he took it very well.

Sweeney: I believe that the Board considered the immediate replacement of Dr. Bugg with an interim President. Why did they choose to keep him on as a "lame duck" executive until June 1976?

Crenshaw: One reason was that there wasn't any interim President that we could appoint that we thought would work out. Three people who were obvious candidates were Dr. Burgess or Dr. Eickhoff or Dr. Bugg. Dr. Eickhoff was obviously a candidate for the Presidency. We felt that it wouldn't be right to keep him on as an interim because we felt that either it would hurt his chances or unduly help them. In either event we didn't feel it would be fair. As far as Dr. Burgess was concerned, we thought that probably it would be better to have Dr. Bugg stay on and so he did. I think that

8

Chuck Burgess really didn't want to do it, and when we talked to Jim about keeping him on, he didn't want to do it either, really, but he was agreeable, and it was helping us out. We just thought it was the best solution to a bad problem.