Additional Webb interviews ...

[Transcript continued from January 14, 1975]

102

Sweeney: Today we’re interviewing former president Lewis Webb of Old Dominion University in our series of interviews with him. And the first question that I wanted to pose to him today is in regard to the Urban Policy Conferences sponsored by the Brookings Institution in 1964 and what these conferences involved and what their objective might have been.

Webb: In 1964 a Brookings representative, Mr. John Osmond, approached me with the concern that he felt the city of Norfolk, being similar to a number of other cities throughout the country which were currently undertaking a program on the Urban Studies format. And he felt that the Norfolk area needed the same type of approach which really was an attempt to bring the leading citizens up to meeting the problems which they have and which problems are also common throughout other metropolitan areas of the country. At this time, Brookings sponsored the entire seminar; the university wasn’t required to put up any funds at all. We did provide the necessary organizational staff and information concerning the citizens who would profit from this type of thing. And people on the City Council, the Planning Directors, people that made decisions that affected the entire city of Norfolk were invited to participate. This was the conference which met, I believe, every other week at least twice a month. And experts from all over the country were brought in to discuss such things as sanitation, the disposal of solid waste, other areas, transportation, political considerations that affect the community. We felt it was a very successful meeting in that it was bringing leaders together, some 40 leaders had attended this conference, enabling them to cross lines from various occupations and to really look at the city as a whole rather than a part, such as an engineer would examine it or a doctor or political leader. It was quite successful, so much so that Mr. Osmond felt that, if he could get the president of Brookings, Mr. Mitchell, interested in coming in again on a regional basis because, as we studied the Norfolk situation, we found that a great deal was a problem that affected not just Norfolk city but the entire Tidewater area. So the Tidewater Regional Policy Conferences were developed, and these we did ask the various municipalities to help in supporting the conference. Each one was asked to contribute; I think the city of Norfolk contributed $5,000 and the others in proportion to the relative size of the populations. Portsmouth, Virginia Beach, Chesapeake,

103

Norfolk and Newport News-Hampton were all involved in this second conference. I think the second conference did even more in getting the people from the different political subdivisions to talk together, to see that their problems were mutual problems and to try to ease our talking about methods of attacking these problems.

Sweeney: Did you favor the creation of the Old Dominion Intercollegiate Foundation in the mid—1960’s to raise scholarship money for student athletes?

Webb: I favored it with one reservation. And the reservation was that we would have control over the funds which were raised; in other words, the Athletic Department would know just where these funds were being used and for what purpose and that they would be reported. We didn’t want any group of alumni giving scholarships under the table or scholarships which were not definitely known to our Athletic Department and reported by them. Also is another stipulation which I put on it because we were at that time desperate to raise funds for improving the academic standards of the college, and we were getting some $75,000 from our friends of the college that were contributing through the Educational Foundation. We told the intercollegiate group that they must not solicit funds from any of those that we were getting contributions for the Educational Foundation. I didn’t want to see athletics detracted in any way from our educational program.

Sweeney: Were you pleased by the way that the Foundation operated?

Webb: The Foundation operated on a rather shaky basis for several years in which I agreed to let it incur a deficit. The deficit amounted to some $15 to $20,000 at times. Knowing the men that were backing this Intercollegiate Foundation and having their assurances that they would personally see it was picked up, I had no qualms at all in saying to them, "All right, go ahead and give your scholarships; make your commitments and on paper incur a deficit of obligations up to some $25,000." And that was justified as these men did increase their size of their organization, increase the giving and paid this off about a year after I got out of the presidency. I think they paid it off round about 1970.

Sweeney: In 1964 an anonymous donor gave the college $750,000 for endowment and for a planetarium ($700,000 for the endowment and $50,000 for the planetarium). Could you give any more information about this bequest?

104

Webb: Give more, I can give everything but the name. A very close friend of the college and one that made the first gift to the college back in the ‘30’s. And he had an interest in this college and believed in it, and when he had an opportunity to help financially, he did so. The gift for the planetarium was really not the gift for the physical building but for the projection and the interior of the planetarium (the special seating, lighting in the planetarium itself). This, we did not have funds to obtain. We couldn’t obtain funds from the state. In the building of the Chemistry Building, we did design the cubicle which houses the planetarium, so that was paid for by the state. But the mechanism for projecting the stars and the seating was all a special gift. This man has since made several additional gifts, and I feel he is still a very supporter of this university.

Sweeney: Now the creation of a community college division was announced late in 1964, recommended by terminal program committee. Several questions occur on this matter. First of all, why the committee was formed and how it carried out its study; what its conclusions were; and, finally, did the creation of a state community college system under Governor Godwin lead to the abolition of the community college division at Old Dominion?

Webb: Yes, you see, we were feeling a need in the community for the vocational—technical training. And in the beginning there was no evidence at all that the state would go into this field. Yet there was tremendous need in the Tidewater area for such an educational facility. We were working it, began of course with the war training program, and it developed into quite a sizable operation which was done quite inexpensively to the state, I might add. The support we were getting from the state was amounting to some $75 a student, and you can compare that with the cost now of the community colleges, which are running over a thousand dollars per student. So, you see, we were doing this on a rather economical basis. When the state went into the community colleges and started establishing them around the, we were told that they would come into the city and into the immediate area feeding our institution. So we began upgrading and taking such programs that could be developed into four—year programs, such as the civil engineering group and certain engineering programs of a technical nature that electrical or electronic group that was in great demand and on a really four—year level rather than a two—year level. And so we discontinued a number of

105

the other programs. We discontinued auto mechanics quite quickly. When the city put in some auto mechanic training, we discontinued the welding program, the program in heating and ventilating, and some of the drafting programs which we had. We phased out as quickly as we could in face of the community colleges which were developing around us. I think the phasing out was done a little too quickly in some cases because the state did not pick up and the gap is still there. But at the time they were operating, they were effective programs and the students were able to obtain employment at very satisfactory levels of remuneration. And so I feel they were fully justified and kept quite separate from the collegiate programs of the college. Although in some cases it did cross lines in the furnishing of instructors to the technical group for mathematics, some English and some other subjects.

Sweeney: During the mid—1960’s, before the overproduction of college teachers began, I wonder if the college had difficulty attracting first-rate faculty because of the low salaries here.

Webb: There’s no question that we had difficulty in attracting the faculty. Our loads were heavier than most of the state institutions in the way of semester hour loads, and the salaries were also low. The advantages that we had to offer were some in that we were in a large community and the wife could find employment in the area and the opportunity for the children to seek part—time jobs in the area and students. So we did have something going for us, and I think the main thing was the friendly attitude the faculty themselves generated, and they really brought the faculty into this institution. When we have a satisfactory professor of English, he could convince others that this was a good place to teach, to research, although the benefits were not as great. So we were always able to maintain a good teaching faculty although there were disadvantages and we had to look hard, and really the faculty themselves were the ones who brought in the faculty we needed to expand.

Sweeney: In January of 1965 the federal government threatened to cut off funds from the college if the school did not guarantee an end to racial discrimination and its policies of admission. I realize that this school didn’t have much in the way of federal funds, but I was wondering on what grounds did the U. S. Government base its accusation of racial discrimination, and how did you react to the threat?

Webb: The threat was made simply because we had very few blacks on campus. Although we said our policy was not to discriminate,

106

they said, Well, you don’t have them (blacks). There must be a barrier. We said, Point the barrier out to us so we can do something about it, and they never were able to show me the barrier. Of course, the barrier was there. Put it this way, for the black it was more attractive, more interesting to him, more to his advantage to attend Norfolk State Division of Virginia State College than to come here. I pointed this out to the group that sat with me and tried to emphasize our need to attract more blacks. The school system itself —— the public school system —— was not at that time —— there’s no way to deny it —— preparing the black student at a level they could do college work as easily as the white student was being prepared. The schools were not fully integrated at that time, and there was definitely a difference in the levels of the output from the black high schools and the whites. The black immediately recognized that if he came here, our standards of continuation were high and that he would have a chance to fail either in one semester or certainly at the end of one year, which would therefore reduce his chances of getting into any other institution of higher learning. And he didn’t want to take that chance until he was sure he could handle college work. So he went to Norfolk State. The standards of admission and continuation were not anywhere near as high as ours. We were using college board scores and so was every other state institution in the state of Virginia. We had studies showing the level of those admitted in every institution in the state. I had the graph made which I showed to the group from Washington and showed them that if we took the upper 10%, according to college board scores, now this is not the infallible way to select college students —— but it was being used. And if I took the upper 10% of Norfolk State’s class, they’d fall into the lower 10% of our class, and the death rate in the lower 10% of our class was very high. Therefore, very few of those would have much chance for continuation. Inspite of this, they still felt that they should be admitted. I said, Well, if we admit them and label them as a failure, is that better than allowing them to continue for four years at Norfolk State getting a degree? With that, they said in other words, You tell us, then, that a degree given by Norfolk State is not comparable to yours? I said, I certainly do; nor is mine comparable to MIT’s. There’s a difference, and it’s quite easy to demonstrate, to point, to prove. But the point I’m making is that four years is better than one in which you failed and four years in which you continued and was successful. These people are coming out with a degree and holding down jobs, and they increase their dignity, which

107

is something to be said for it. They said, Well, we see what point you’re making, but at the same time we feel that you’ve got to increase the number of blacks on this campus. I asked again just how this would be done, and they said that the only thing they could give me was offer scholarships to them. Our scholarships are, as anyone will recognize, if they examine the financial part of the institution, are normally given for scholarship merit rather than just for need. And most of them were given by the donors that specified the use to which those could be put. And I didn’t have very many just out and out scholarships. None of these scholarships were permitted to continue if the student fell below one point at that time, which was a C average. So I had no real hope of getting students in by scholarships. Another thing that should be recognized is that the outstanding black high school graduate that was really capable of doing good college work was being sought after by many, many Northern colleges and given scholarships, full—tuition, room—board scholarships. And we were not getting nor was any institution in Virginia getting these students. They were going to Harvard, Columbia, and many of the top—flight institutions, educational institutions simply because those institutions had scholarship money, and they wanted to increase their percentage of black students. The ones that were left over were not strong academic risks.

Sweeney: The faculty senate was created in 1965. Why did it come about and how did you react to its creation and what was its value and its purpose?

Webb: The faculty senate, the group of faculty came to me asking if they could have permission to organize the faculty senate, and I agreed to the organization. As to the powers of the senate, the things that they asked that the senate be permitted to do, I did not agree to. This institution, the entire administrative structure of the institution, was totally invested in the Board of Visitors of the college. And they in turn delegated what authorities they sought to do to the president, and he in turn to his faculty, deans, and so on. I was not interested at all in having a faculty senate created that would take over the administrative duties of the institution because I felt that the faculty’s duties were to teach and to research and not to administer. And the group doing the administration of the institution was set up for the purpose of relieving the faculty of this responsibility. Now the input from the faculty senate was welcomed by me. I don’t remember ever refusing or even not encouraging them to take

108

part in discussions or report to me their likes, dislikes, or their ideas. But the decision was made by the administration and not by the faculty senate. So I think the thing that bothered the faculty senate group in its initial organization was that they were not given any authority. They were used strictly as an advisory group, and this seemed to irk them quite a bit —— those that were instigating the objectives of the organization. And they wanted to make the decisions and that I did not agree with. But as far as an advisory group to the president, I was well, I received it well.

Sweeney: Why did the plans to expand the Alfriend Chemistry Building never come to fruition?

Webb: I don’t know because, you see, plans to expand that came after I left. I mean, if you’ll look at the long range plans for the institution, and we made long range studies, it seems like every three years, at least, maybe even every two years, but the development of the institution called for the expansion of chemistry, which is the reason the back side of that building is sheathed only in cinderblock to allow it to expand to the south. And high on the part of this was building of a Life Science building next to it in similar shape and size and a Physical Science building next to that. In other words, there would be three science buildings built side by side, the physics, geology, the physical sciences, and then the life sciences and then the chemistry building. These drop down very low on the priority list after I had left and probably for a good reason, that I was not involved in this planning and, as you see, the administration building took first priority which was built and then the library building. I had the library up on the priority list but not top on the list.

Sweeney: In 1965 Sonny Allen became the basketball coach, and I have two questions in regard to the basketball program. First of all, did you favor an upgrading of our intercollegiate basketball program and, secondly, did you see a value in this program in that it might attract more interest from the community and the college, giving the public a feeling of involvement in and identification with the college?

Webb: Yes, as we, Bud Metheny and I, talked this over and planned the expansion of athletics, we brought in Sonny Allen to be the basketball coach, knowing full well that he was coming with the understanding that he was going to expand the role of athletics and basketball especially as fast as we could within the limits that we had. This, of course, was also the reason for the formation of the Intercollegiate Foundation in which Bud Metheny and Sonny Allen were given a rather free reign to get scholarship money from the Intercollegiate Foundation for some we hoped sixteen scholarships, paying

109

full tuition and room and board and the dormitory. This was the first thought for the development of our athletics program; the only stipulation with this was that we would not involve ourselves with football. I want community interest and community support, but I am totally opposed to the development of a football team program that is currently being carried on by the other state institutions. The fact that the expense is extremely high and the load put on the athletic association and the alumni and friends is poured entirely into the sport of football to the deterioration of the other sports. I feel that this institution should have sports which their own students should take part ——baseball, track, cross country, wrestling, basketball, those sports which can be participated in by normal students and not students that are recruited directly for the sport. Participating in athletics is important, but to hire students for show is against my principles, and Mr. Metheny understood this, and we have never had any pressure on us of any consequence to start football, and I hope as long as it is being developed as it is that we will never succumb to that pressure.

Sweeney: What arguments did you use in pressing the General Assembly and Governor Harrison for the new Physical Education Building?

Webb: The main argument, of course, was the fact that we had a large student body at that time in the neighborhood of 4,000 students and a very small facility which the dressing rooms were even inadequate. There was no other source of recreation on the campus for students, and there was a great need to find some place for an intramural program. We were pushing strongly to have students take part in intramural. Since they didn’t live on campus, we wanted them while they were here to have something or an attraction to keep them on campus and not go home every afternoon, and the intramural sports were the only ways that we could do this. So we could point to a tremendous usage of the small facility which we had; that facility was built in 1935, at which time we had 500 students and were anticipating 1500 as the maximum. So the current facility was completely outgrown, and the need was strong enough to convince Mr. Harrison that we should have a physical education building. Not a coliseum for playing basketball but a place to teach physical education. If you note the design of the building, that is the way that it is designed. It is very comfortable for watching basketball games and even now last night will basketball game. Dancing, ballet, wrestling, tumbling and all the various sports, swimming, there have been carefully planned spaces adequate for their use.

110

So really this is the sum of the college activity, and we were fortunate to get from the federal government funds to supplement what the state gave us, which allowed us to build a much larger building that we were able to do with the state money. The building still has room to expand two wings of the building as the institution grows, and we hope that these will be expanded and add on other things which we were unable to get in the first stage.

Sweeney: I think that the next two questions can easily be combined. This regards the new metropolitan studies program which began in the 1960’s. You talked to Governor Harrison about this in July of 1965, and I wondered what you had in mind as to the objectives of this program and what arguments you used with the State Council of Education to gain their approval and also how Governor Harrison responded to the proposal?

Webb: When this institution was separated from the College of William and Mary, one of the first things that we had formed, of course, was the Board of Visitors. We asked the Governor to be sure that people were appointed from the metropolitan area and not just from the city of Norfolk. Nor, in fact, in the beginning did we want people from out of the state or far ends of the state. We wanted a working Board, and this Board really brought about the feeling for a community-wide type program rather than a small municipal type program. This institution was not to serve the city of Norfolk but to serve the entire Tidewater area. So we had people from Newport News on it, people from Portsmouth, Chesapeake, Virginia Beach members of this Board, and they looked at this as a long—range objective of the university to bring about a program which would appeal to the larger interests rather than to the small municipality interests. Governor Harrison was receptive, and the thing that I continued to point out is that when we sold an idea of this type I didn’t go alone to sell the idea. I took my deans with me, I took my Board members with me that were involved in the program. All the programs that we instituted at this institution went first through the council deans. They were worked over, and questions were raised as to the usefulness of the programs and the feasibility of the programs. Then they went to the special committee of the Board of Visitors they set. They worked very hard because no program ever got by that Board, that committee of the Board,

111

the Educational Committee of the Board, without careful scrutiny, and we then went to the State Council of Higher Education; the two or three members of that Board went with me to convince the State Council that this program had been studied carefully and was reasonable and obtainable. They are the men who really that helped us develop this college, and they deserve a great deal of praise and thanks for what they did.

Sweeney: Were the reading improvement classes for freshmen that were instituted in 1965 brought about because a larger portion of freshmen were deficient readers; also, how successful were these classes?

Webb: I feel that the reading improvement program was very successful. It was an expensive operation and time consuming for the part of the faculty. However, I think that is the reason for its demise. We really didn’t have the funds to continue that operation; if we had sufficient funds today, I say that it should be reinstituted, very strongly insisted upon. Students coming into the university often get by in high school with the least effort, and the least effort often means they haven’t learned how to read; they also haven’t learned how to spell, to write decent compositions, and all these things reflect on the student if we allow them to continue these and go on through graduation. So even at one time we had orals for graduates in which we would listen to his use of English and determine if he did go out would he be a detriment to the image of the college or would he be a substantial person in the eyes of those in the community that were going to use him. Because many of our students were going locally into employment, and it was so easy to come right back to us saying, Your graduates can’t read, they can’t spell, they can’t use grammar. Whereas if they graduate from some of the out-of—state colleges or state institutions the feedback didn’t go back directly like they did here. Our faculty met on the streets and civic organizations, and they were soon told if students came out to work for them that the students couldn’t write a decent letter. It was affecting our output, our image, and so I feel that these reading programs were essential. They improved the ability of the students that learned, not just in the field of English but in anything. As in the engineering curriculum we still insisted that even the engineer take this reading improvement program. As I say, I think that the cost, the difficulty in screening and following up on the reading caused it to be dropped.

112

Sweeney: Could you give me some background information on Thomas Maxwell’s criticism of the college in 1965? Thomas Maxwell, of course, being the city manager of Norfolk. His criticism of the college for asking the city of Norfolk for $7,500 to help finance urban seminars.

Webb: The criticism was a result of the approach that we made to the city of Norfolk. A former councilman and I were involved in requesting all of the communities to come in to support this urban studies program, and we first approached with some of the smaller cities rather than hit first the city of Norfolk. We got a commitment from the city of Portsmouth and the city of Virginia Beach and then hit the city of Norfolk. I think that the irritation was that he was not approached first, and we were accused of putting pressure on the city. You see what the city of Portsmouth and Virginia Beach is doing? Now you have to take part in this whether you want to or not. It was a fault in communications, I guess. Although Maxwell was extremely jealous of the leadership which he felt that the city of Norfolk should play, and he didn’t want the decision to be made first by one of the smaller municipalities. He felt that it ought to have come to him. This created a little unfavorable attitude, but it didn’t last long. The city council was fully behind this institution and gave us support, and the city of Norfolk itself was governed by the city council rather than the city manager. Although the city manager had a great deal of influence, still the city manager did what the council told him to do, and under the regime when Mr. Duckworth was mayor there is no question that we went first to Mr. Duckworth to get what we wanted, and the city manager knew this. Although it may have irritated him, we still knew that all we had to do is get Mr. Duckworth’s backing and the city council and we would get what we wanted, which was the method of operating in the beginning. Since that time, of course, the control of the city council has been changed a great deal, and the city manager is playing a much stronger role. But when it was needed we obtained help from the city of Norfolk. The city of Norfolk was never willing to take over the obligations of the state of Virginia and that I know and really approved of that. Although I also would appreciate and gather support from the city.

113

Sweeney: Did you schedule classes at noon in 1965 so that the classrooms might be utilized? Did this not conflict with the meeting time of student organizations? Students reacted rather strongly against this.

Webb: This was just another way for the students to express themselves, which is all right. If you will check back you will find that the classes scheduled at noon were multiple section classes. We never allowed any class to be scheduled at noon. That was the only section of that particular subject. We were short of space and we needed room. The use of the rooms couldn’t be justified. The disuse of the rooms or the failure to use the rooms couldn’t be justified. Of course, student life on the campus was not affected; not 10% of the students attended those 12:00 sessions because they did not have to attend them. They could always find another session to attend, but there was a method of saying, You see, you are forcing us to give up our activities at noon. This is far from the objective, the objective, of course, encourage the intramurals at noon and the student meetings of the organizations. Thursday, I believe it was, was kept entirely open so that any group could be assured that they could meet Thursday and have a 100% attendance. But, really, there was a lot of talk for very little justification.

Sweeney: In 1965 the Virginia Higher Education Study Commission issued a report which made several recommendations. For example, the recommendation for the state—wide system for community colleges, a new state university in northern Virginia, a new four—year college on the Peninsula, a new university in Richmond consisting of the Medical College in Richmond Professional Institute. However, when it came to Old Dominion College, the only major specific recommendation was that the name of the school be changed to Old Dominion University. Why did the Commission find it so difficult to make specific recommendations on what direction the school’s development should take? Did you have the feeling that the college’s role in the state system was not yet defined in the 1960’s? Was it defined in your own mind then?

Webb: It was defined in my own mind but, of course, I couldn’t convince the state. I didn’t feel that it was timely to try to convince the state of that time of the role. The role would be strenuously objected to by the University of Virginia, by VPI, and by William and Mary. Our role, of course, has

114

always been to develop an urban university. That is finally what it has been recognized. Rather than force the issue and have the other groups descend upon us and reduce or delay at least the chances of getting into our new role. I saw no use in pushing for the role at that time and was willing to simply let our college develop. We still had a great deal to do educationally with the funds that we had, with the buildings that we had, and as long that I saw no threats to our expansion and development here the role could wait. That’s what we did to abide our time. The combination of RPI and the Medical College of Virginia even today is one that is not functioning smoothly and for many years will not function smoothly. But that’s what we call a "shotgun wedding." The Medical College needed an academic affiliation for crediting purposes. The Richmond Professional Institute needed to strengthen its undergraduate program drastically. It would develop, of course, from the graduate program with practically no underpinning, and that had to develop. So, putting them together on paper, I have no objection to it. In fact, I think it was the thing to do. However, it will take many years to work out an effective administration of those two dissimilar educational enterprises and locations being under considerable distances apart for frequent crossing of the line of the medicine and the academics. Again, in the development of our Tidewater medical program, I felt that if this came that it should be developed adjacent to our campus and not adjacent to the hospital. I argued strongly for that without any success, as you may see, because the argument at that time that was given was that they would not have to have separate buildings. It would simply be absorbed into the big Norfolk General Hospital. Of course, this is obvious that it couldn’t be done, it shouldn’t be done. The hospital wasn’t built as a teaching hospital and now it is quite obvious a big program of construction must be done, and it could be done just as well adjacent to our campus where our physics, chemistry, biology departments could have interacted closely with the medical school. But that is one of our failures to sell; the Redevelopment and Housing Authority under Mr. Cox sold the idea of developing near the Norfolk General Hospital, and that’s where it would be.

Sweeney: On this point about the college role, did the state have any vision for the college in the 1960’s? Did they have views as an overgrown community college, or just what?

Webb: The State Council of Higher Education, you have to study their background to really understand. I think that the majority of the Council members, by that I mean the working members of the State Council, the director and his subordinates

115

that work with him understood very clearly the role that we were going to play. They, of course, as I say if you understood the background, you would realize that the State Council of Higher Education had very little authority, was very tenuous operation that could be cut off at any minute at the displeasure of the state legislature. They were prohibited by law from reviewing budgets or making recommendations on budgets even in the beginning, and whatever they did they knew that individual institutions could very easily and often did go around them directly to the legislature and got what they wanted in spite of the State Council. As the educational process developed, in other words as the obvious need is for a larger influential and controlling body such as the State Council of Higher Education. We have got to have at least 15 to 20 major colleges in the state, each going independently, of course, now 30 community colleges all going to the legislature with their hands out with special programs and no coordination and conflicting programs and overlapping programs. The State Council slowly gained more strength in the eyes of the legislature. But back in those days the State Council was not going to stick his neck out to say, "This is what should be done in Norfolk, we are positive of it." They didn’t dare to do it, knowing it could react not only against us but against them. So we spent our time simply an educational one, convincing the members that we did amount to something and we had a role to play and sooner or later we would be given permission to play that role.

Sweeney: Just one other note on this question. I was wondering how you felt about the proposal for the development of a new four—year state college on the Peninsula because this might be viewed as in competition with the growth of Old Dominion College.

Webb: You are right. I was very much opposed to it, and I feel that it was a wrong decision with the tunnel and the taking off the fees of the tunnel. The development of a four—year institution on the Peninsula can’t be justified. The location of William and Mary within one—half hour driving time to that Peninsula and within one—half hour driving time to this institution, you couldn’t prove to me that the economy of setting up such a program. I am not talking about the setting up of a community college there with very large adult—type programs for the evening. But a four—year college such as they have established in Christopher Newport just didn’t make sense to me. Christopher Newport, I admire it, it is a nice little

116

institution, but it has a very long row to hoe. Whether or not it can attract the students, the student with ability, and develop into more than a very small four-year college is questionable in my mind. Of course, we still get many, many students from the Peninsula area that commute daily. Because of our size, we can offer a wide variety of programs and more intense study, better faculty, better—qualified faculty and more facilities for research. But I am sorry to say that I didn’t approve of the formation of that college. William and Mary put it there strictly as a holding operation, a two—year operation to feed into their upper level programs. William and Mary had no intentions of ever letting that develop into a four-year college. The development of it to become a four—year college came strictly from the interest of the community leaders on the Peninsula who wanted the four-year college. William and Mary resisted as long as they could until they were told by the legislature they had to allow to move forward.

Sweeney: Now we are back tracking about three or four questions here, on the material found in the files of the Advisory Board. In 1948 you were disturbed about a group on campus called the International Relations Club, which had eight to ten students and three faculty members. There was a rumor that this organization was a Communist organization. I was wondering how that rumor got started, and apparently they had Henry Wallace as a speaker, and I wondered how you felt about that. Did you think perhaps that this organization was trying to gain prestige by affiliating its name with the college?

Webb: My memory is not real sharp on that particular question, so I hesitate to answer that. Of course, back in those days, we did look a great deal harder at Communist activities and leftist leanings than we do today. Undoubtedly there was a connection between these students, the faculty and the Communist affiliation, the Communist indoctrination. It didn’t disturb me greatly because it was a very small group, and they were never a very influential group. In other words, they didn’t seem to attract the really top—flight student or the thinking students on campus. Eventually this proved to be their undoing; they simply passed away. But I am sure that when I look back it irritated me. I was born and raised in a very strictly American—type family, of course, and "Communist" to me was a bad word. I am sure that I didn’t offer any incentives for them to expand their activities or encourage them in any way. But, as I say, my memory is

117

pretty hazy on that; I don’t think we had any out—and—out battles, as I remember it. The faculty felt probably put upon that I didn’t encourage the group to take part. I remember in one case, and I am not sure of the name of that organization, that at the opening exercise when we had our freshman orientation that I warned the students against a particular organization on campus and told them that it was Communistically supported, and I received criticism from several faculty members on this score. They said that I had no evidence that this organization was supported by the Communist Party. But I did have the evidence and it was subsequently proved that they were and that organization too disappeared. But they said that, even if it is supported by the Communists, it is none of your business, and you have no right to warn students against it. I pointed a very clear case that we had had before here on the campus back in the 30’s. It was popular for some of the faculty to dabble in things of the Communist Party. In other words, it was fashionable to discuss Communism and the possibility of this country being Communistic in time. The one or two of our faculty affiliated with groups that were studying this, and there was no question that they were under scrutiny of the F.B.I. The FBI knew every one of them, and they had files on them. I am referring to the fact that one of the faculty dabbled in the Communistic meetings some many years ago in the 30’s, and after the war in the 50’s he applied for a passport to visit certain foreign countries and this was delayed, denied, put away for a matter of four years before he was finally cleared, simply because of his early leanings to meetings of that type. When our students were demonstrating, which they did mildly here on campus, there is no question that they were being scrutinized by FBI The agents were clearly visible on campus, and they were being watched. I warned students that such records would not be held in favor to them and advised them to check very carefully before they joined things even with high names like The Americans for the Betterment of Viet Nam, or whatever they might be titled, but to investigate the real reasons and causes this group was sponsoring. But we have never had a great deal of trouble of leftist leanings in this community; it has been very mild.

Sweeney: Also, from that same time period, could you explain the function of the Directors Faculty Advisory Committee, which was chaired in the early 1950’s by Professor C. S. Sherwood?

Webb: The Directors Faculty Advisory Committee was set up for the purpose of being sure that information coming to administration

118

was not being stopped at the level of the deans. In other words, faculty members could say, "Well, I tried to get my ideas through to you, but Dean X stopped them there and you never heard my side," and so this faculty advisory group was set up with the intention of having a forum where the faculty could express themselves, their opinions, and bring things directly into the administration without having to go through the deans or the sub-level of the administration. Professor Sherwood was, I think, elected rather than appointed by me. I think that he was elected by the faculty group; again, I would have to check on that to see how that came about.

Sweeney: What was the function of the student senate in those days? (1950’ s)

Webb: The student senate, again, was a body operated to try to bring to the attention of the administration the problems which the student was facing, areas in which the administration and the faculty could better serve the students, and I felt that this was a direct link between administration and the student. The institution growing rapidly, the possibility of an administrator knowing students, a large number of them, was getting very remote, and yet to establish some line of communication. So when the students had their desire that wasn’t being handled properly by the Dean of Students or Academic Dean, for that matter, that these students had a senate that which they could formulate and discuss and arrange their needs and arguments to bring them directly to the administration.

Sweeney: In 1951 the Assistant Superintendent of Schools, E. L. Lamberth, complained about the disorderly conduct of Norfolk Division students accompanied by faculty at Granby High School and at Maury High School. Lamberth himself reported witnessing door slamming and interruption of classes as well as rudeness to school personnel at Granby. I was wondering why were these groups of Norfolk Division students and faculty visiting the high schools, had not any preparations been made, and I was wondering were you able to mollify the anger of school administrators?

Webb: We were definitely quite concerned when I got a report that certain faculty members were going into the schools without permission, prior knowledge of the Superintendent and causing disruption of the classes. The faculty member was told on no uncertain terms that this was not to be done and especially not to be done in the name of the college. That if they had business there they could certainly request an audience, and I am sure that the Superintendent of Schools would give this

119

audience. But simply to walk over a group of students, I don’t care what the subject matter, the subject matter being political, the subject matter being science, mathematics, no matter what, they had no business to go and disrupt the teaching done in the public school system. We wanted to build good will between the college and the public schools and that this could not be tolerated. The faculty disagreed, of course, violently that we had no right telling them what they could do and what they couldn’t do, but they undoubtedly felt I could bring some pressure to bear, which I didn’t hesitate to bear to bring this very strongly to the attention that we wouldn’t tolerate such action.

Sweeney: Do you recall why they, the faculty members, took the students over there?

Webb: Offhand I don’t. I just think that they were trying to organize some small group, and I am not sure the purpose of it, really. But it was some political action group, as I remember it. It wasn’t athletics and it certainly wasn’t science because I am very close to both of those, and so I am not actually certain what the purpose of them being there.

Sweeney: In 1962 you announced to the Board of Visitors that you planned to resign within a year. I was wondering why you made this announcement? Did you advise the Board to seek other applicants of the job?

Webb: I felt when this institution was separated from the College of William and Mary that the Board should feel free to select the president, select the person that would lead the institution in the way the Board felt it should go. I told them the first year that I had no desire to step down immediately because I didn’t feel that most of the Board members understood what the institution was doing. The program that we had outlined for future. So, until they learned that from me, I felt that they should continue me as president, but after the first year they would receive my resignation and that they should then decide to reappoint or to elect a new president. I still feel that the president of this institution or any other institution, his issue should be reviewed annually, and if the president was not performing according to the wishes of the Board, then they should not hesitate to remove him. The institution is far more important than any one person, including the president, which I was at that time, and so that was my reason for telling the Board, "Listen, you are the only legal operators of this institution, not me. It

120

is your duty to select top people to lead the institution in the direction that it should go." And that is what I did.

Sweeney: What was the rationale in about 1963 or 1964 for dividing the School of Arts and Sciences into the School of Arts and Letters and the School of Sciences?

Webb: Rationale was simply one of size. We had a Dean of the School of Business, Dean of School of Education, Dean of School of Engineering, and in each one of these units represented from 20 to possibly 50 faculty members in size. The Dean of Arts and Sciences had a tremendous number of faculty. I didn’t feel that he could adequately keep up with the needs of his faculty and that he needed some relief. There also, of course, is a very sharp division in thought, action, and methods and feeling between science and liberal arts, and so the obvious division would be to pull the sciences and allow them a separate operation. For years the science group always complained their salaries needed to be higher than that of the arts group, and yet they were held to the same level. They needed a great deal more in the way of laboratory equipment and special teaching devices, and yet they were always faced with the same level as the history, English, art group; and so for harmony of the institution as well as for the administrative operation we pulled the sciences away from the group and left arts and letters together. Arts and letters is still the giant in size compared to the other groups.

Sweeney: You have already stated your position on the freedom of speech issue and speakers on campus, but just one further point on this. In 1965 the Emerson Form requested permission to invite gubernatorial candidate George Lincoln Rockwell, the American Nazi, to the campus, and you asked the forum to reconsider the request. The faculty senate adopted a resolution for an open speakers policy, but the faculty as a whole voted it down 104 to 98 in a March referendum. I was wondering about that vote. It seems unusual for faculties with their usual bent toward open—end speakers policies to vote against this. Did this surprise you, or did you feel that you had presented your position to them in such a way that they would support you?

Webb: Again, hindsight is, of course, a lot easier than foresight and yet, looking back, I felt that a majority of our faculty were moderate in their views and their actions and that they

121

would support a limited control over the speakers in that they saw no reason to break in unqualified people simply to cause emotions to flair and not to really function as an educational unit. In other words, why should we bring someone in with no knowledge on a particular subject to take the time of our students to listen to them when our time was extremely limited and we couldn’t devote such attention to everyone. So I still feel that speakers coming to campus should be scrutinized carefully as to their real contribution that they can make to the life of the student, to his academic progress, to his knowledge, and just to bring in a fly—by—night irritant, emotional binge, I see no point in it. I would oppose it today as a faculty member, not as an administration but as a faculty member. I would not want my students disrupted in their studies to listen to this-rabble—rousing type.

Sweeney: In April 1966 the Board of Visitors adopted the open speakers policy, so it seemed that some of the policy had changed. I was wondering why the Board of Visitors took this action, if you were disappointed at this, whether pressures were exerted by any off—campus organizations, and whether you felt this was a wise decision?

Webb: The pressure, of course, came from the newspapers. We felt that open policies were the proper approach, and many of our leaders and Board of Visitors were closely affiliated with the newspapers, and they were easily swayed to make the policy. I did not support it and was vocal in saying I disapproved of it but, naturally, if they wanted it, that’s the way it would be. I don’t make the policy; they make the policy, I carry it out. I try to influence the making of policy, but when the policy is made that is the policy, and I was disappointed because this isn’t the way I like to operate, as you may well guess. But if that’s the way it should be, then we will go along with it.

Sweeney: In June of 1966 Governor Godwin approved a 20—year plan for the expansion of Old Dominion College. The projected enrollment figure for 1975 back in 1966 was 13,000 to 14,000, which they declared to be a conservative estimate. Well, in this year of 1974 we have 11,807 students. I was wondering about this plan, who drew it up, how much input you had into it, and whether you thought back then that perhaps that the enrollment estimate might be too high. I also wondered if the Arts and Letters Building was included in this plan?

122

Webb: The enrollment plan was projected prior to the formation of all of these community colleges, and there is no doubt that the community college has had a very serious effect on the pattern which was established prior to them. In other words, without those our growth would have, I think today, have been well beyond the range which we have established. Of course, two things happened —— the birth rate declined, more students are going to college which was in our prediction, and we did the best we could, with all the information we had of the planning at that time, to project enrollment. I still think that this university will ultimately stop at about 20,000 students because the graduate programs and advanced programs are going to build when the flow from these community colleges is fully felt. And I think this is a temporary setback in growth, but is not one that I don’t welcome. I would think it’s fine that we do have this temporary setback to give us the chance to solidify our programs, academic programs, and our buildings and to get a firmer hold of what we have. This thing of just keeping up, just keeping your head above water as students pour in, was what we went through for many, many years and is not the way for an operation of a university such as this will be.

END OF TAPING SESSION

Additional Webb interviews ...