Additional Webb interviews ...

74

Sweeney: Today, once again, I’m interviewing former president Lewis W. Webb, Jr., of Old Dominion University.

The first question, Dr. Webb, in 1962 you declared that college entrance requirements were too high and that they should be relaxed; however, a strict severance policy for non—producers should be established. This policy seems similar to many policies of Midwestern schools of large freshman classes and then a large wash—out of non—producers. Could you relate this to an open admissions policy.

Webb: I think probably that the name that you applied to it today was the difficulty in trying to establish some realistic standards for admission. The college board scores were not infallible. We knew that the high school averages were not because, generally, if you examine them, you’ll find that the girls were crowded at the top of the lists and the boys further down. It simply indicated that the boys were maturing at a later time and often after one year of college they would blossom. So I definitely was —— until a better method of determining admission could be established in favor of open admission and very strict ability, performance levels be maintained. In other words, after one semester they’ll all be reviewed and many dropped out at that time; after one year very strict cut lines would be put in. I still think this is what should be done unless we can determine a better method of analyzing the person for admission.

Sweeney: This seems to be similar to the Code B students program instituted in the fall of 1974. Do you see any similarity to that?

Webb: Very similar. I can’t see a great deal of difference in the two procedures. I think it will salvage the number of people that would normally have not had the courage to apply for admission because they were told they were too low on the college boards or the standing in the class was too low. So I really hope to continue that process.

Sweeney: As Old Dominion became an independent college, did you feel that the budget needs were well comprehended or better comprehended by the legislators in Richmond?

75

Webb: Yes, we did. In fact, that’s one of the reasons really for getting to be an independent college. While we were under the William and Mary College, all of our requests had to go through the president and then the Board of Visitors of the College of William and Mary. Often before they ever reached the legislature, they were cut drastically by the William and Mary process. So, getting to be an independent college, at least we knew that our budget needs could be presented directly to the legislators and we could also have a role in explaining those budget heeds. This never happened until we were separated.

Sweeney: In 1963 the Old Dominion College History Club sought permission to sponsor a speech on campus by a man named Carl Braden. Braden had been held in contempt of Congress for refusing to say whether he was a Communist, and he was affiliated with the Southern Conference Education Fund, which was allegedly a pro-Communist organization. You denied permission for him to speak because the Club didn’t file its request 10 days in advance as required by College regulations. I was wondering if this was merely a subterfuge to prevent an embarrassing situation which might hurt the college with the legislature, or did you feel that in giving only two days’ notice the History Club was trying to sneak something past the administration?

Webb: I felt that the History Club was trying to sneak something past the administration. In fact, we had to call their attention to the fact that, when we heard underground that they were bringing this person in, that they had never asked for admission to bring him in and they had all kinds of excuses, such as that he was simply on his way up to New York and would stop here en route and things of that type. They could only get him if they caught him at this time. It was undoubtedly an attempt by the leftist group to cause a little concern on the campus, and I saw no point in waiving the rules to justify that procedure. The rules were established long before that time and weren’t something we’d suddenly brought to light. They knew of the 10-day rule, and I saw no reason to waive it to bring in somebody who would do nothing but irritate the community and, thus, in the long run hurt the institution when I could see no real gain that would be resulted by him coming.

Sweeney: Could you summarize your views at that time on the speaker’s policy for the college? How did you respond to those who declared that the 10—day period was a violation of academic freedom?

Webb: The principle of violation of academic freedom doesn’t hold water at all. In the first place, they could have gotten a place

76

anywhere in the city and heard this man. There’s no reason he had to come to the college in order to be heard; I’m certainly not stifling any academic freedom of the group to say that they couldn’t hear this man. At the same time, speakers were brought in by the Speakers Bureau under the policies of the institution needed to be brought in for some reason. We didn’t bring in every Tom, Dick, and Harry. This is an educational institution, and unless we felt it had some educational value to the student, we saw no point in turning over the property of the university and allowing that property to be used for a purpose other than education. So this is not excluding Braden or not to keep from hearing Braden. He could have gone right across the street and had a meeting, which I think finally he did. When you run an educational institution, the purpose is to provide a decent standard of education and not to provide some rowdy integration —— not integration in the sense of what it means -— but irritation in that would be for the purpose only of providing irritation. Our time, our property, everything is of value, and we have to conserve it. And allowing such irritations to come in for no reason or no educational value, I just didn’t approve of such.

Sweeney: Were you surprised when the Norfolk Virginian—Pilot took sharp issue with you and disagreed with you in their editorial?

Webb: No, not at all. The Virginian—Pilot at that time was what we called a very liberal type of editorial staff, and they sponsored the minority views in almost everything that came up. I was not surprised that they thought that I should allow people like that to come on campus.

Sweeney: Did the feeling that the leaders of the Byrd organization in the legislature would react strongly against the appearance of such a speaker on campus play any role in your decision?

Webb: No, this probably would have never have gotten to the attention of the state in the first place; it was a local thing and it would have probably irritated the city councilman or some of the local legislators. But the Byrd organization leaders I never worry too much about their feelings in a matter of this type. Now I think it would be local rather than statewide organizations that we would be irritating. This isn’t the only time that the local group have suspected the college of being leftist, as you may know. We had the former chancellor of the U. of North Carolina to speak at our commencement, Frank Graham.

77

When the notice came out in the paper that he was going to speak, the Mayor of the City of Norfolk called me and told me under no uncertain terms that he should be cancelled. I informed him that were not intending to do this. In my opinion, Frank Graham was a very fine man and a great leader and that I felt good in what he was doing. At that time, he was with the United Nations. His talk would be devoted to the United Nations. In spite of this, I received considerable pressure right up to the day he made his presentation. Mr. Graham did make a very fine talk. There was nothing leftist about his talk, or he didn’t persuade any of our students to become leftist, I’m sure. We did have that pressure on us not to bring in Frank Graham.

Sweeney: Turning to another matter entirely, in 1963 you mentioned the possibility of a master’s degree in oceanography —-marine biology, and you discussed it with Governor Harrison. I was wondering if you could give me the details on the origins of the Old Dominion interests in oceanography and marine biology?

Webb: This goes back for some time. Naturally this university being surrounded by water, in fact, the last day or two the water has been coming down overhead and the water underground, little lakes and valleys around us, we’re quite aware of water. Trying to find some avenue for our concentration as an urban university to serve our needs, from the beginning I’ve felt that the university had to identify itself with water, with the rivers, with the bay and with the ocean. And I’ve encouraged the sports to move in that direction as well with the sailing team, and I hope some day they’ll find enough money to inaugurate a rowing team. This has got to be our strong suit and for the development of the oceanography—marine biology program, when Dr. Zonavel came through this area on his way to New York, he’d been working in the Dutch Islands off of the Caribbean, I’m not sure of the name of it right now. He was finishing his tour there and was coming up to New York, and he stopped here and talked to me about the Bay. He had no intentions of staying at that time, and I convinced him that if he wanted to study the ocean and the Bay that this was the meeting of the north clime and the southern clime right here and that he could find things that were found only in northern waters and things found only in southern waters, and it was open water that had never frozen over or very rarely frozen over so that year—around work could be done in oceanography. The

78

Bay was so large it had so little study. The fact that the cities in the area were becoming larger and causing more in the way of pollution and that it was a wide—open area for study. He agreed and didn’t go any further. So I signed him up to take over the work for developing program of marine biology. At that time it was put under the Department of Biology because we weren’t large enough to have individual schools. This matter then I did discuss with the president of William and Mary and Dr. Hargis of the Virginia Institute of Marine Science and finally with Governor Harrison because it was obvious that we had to identify with the water and that was the beginning of our doctor’s degree in oceanography and marine biology.

Sweeney: The next question has to do with the annual fund raising campaigns which began in 1963 to supplement faculty salaries. Did they signify a greater recognition for the college and the acceptance of it in the community, to what purposes was the money allocated, and, finally, how effectively the Norfolk Chamber of Commerce assisted the college?

Webb: The Norfolk Chamber of Commerce was very helpful to us. The leaders of the Chamber of Commerce at that time, and I’m not talking just about the professionals who worked with the Norfolk Chamber, but the community leaders that really made up the Chamber, became interested in Old Dominion. Now that we’re a separate institution and identify with the area, they took it on as a challenge to help us. Our salary scales were lower than practically all the large institutions within the state and yet we had to find outstanding faculty, especially in these new fields that were entering —— engineering and oceanography. So they undertook to supplement the faculty salaries. Mr. John Alfriend was one of the particular leaders in this field, and he had wide contact. Although he would engage some 15 to 20 individuals to help him, he could sit down at the front telephone and call on corporations and say, "Tom, Norfolk Ship is going to be in this now, and we are expecting you with $5,000 contribution." And that was as far as he needed to solicit. He had the ability of knowing the people that had the money and the ability to help us. We would raise anywhere from 60 to 75 or 100 thousand a year. This money was used to supplement salaries, not to pay total salaries, but to supplement salaries and also enable us to take good faculty members who were working on their advanced degrees and give them some money to go away during the summer or either give them a year’s leave in order to get their higher degrees. It was an encouraging thing to the faculty, not that the money, in some cases it was

79

only $500 we’d give a faculty member, but he felt, I’m sure, that this little extra help they they were given was the thing that encouraged them to stay at Old Dominion.

Sweeney: Now going on with the fund raising that became institutionalized, and I wonder if you could assess the impact of the Old Dominion College Educational Foundation under the development of the college? It was founded in 1963 and briefly outline the objectives of the foundation.

Webb: This foundation was set up for the purpose of keeping the funds separate from that of the state budget. When the dowance gifts came to the institution in order not to have them lost in the shuffle of them, they mixed in with the budget of institution —— the Commonwealth budget. We had to have some —— we needed the group to manage the gifts, and this was the reason for the formation of the Educational Foundation. They raised the funds or received the funds and invested the funds and it was entirely outside the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Sweeney: I have three questions in respect to the university center. First of all, what role did Old Dominion College students and faculty play in the design of the new campus center? Secondly, how successful was that design? And, thirdly, was the building of a campus center an attempt to get the students to remain on campus after class hours?

Webb: One of the big needs we felt as an urban institution while many, many of our students lived at home was a place where they could have their meetings, where they could gather and could really socialize. We had nothing on campus. The classrooms were used to a certain extent half the hours. Our lunchroom facilities were completely overpowered and practically useless. The gymnasium was the only place that they could gather, and it was used so heavily with physical education classes that was not even available. The big need was for some building to have the student activities. The students played a part in the design of the building because, Dr. Whitehurst was here at that time as dean of students, he worked with us on that a great deal. We hired consultants for the food part of it, but the other part of the building was really the students themselves said how much they would like to have the yearbook. Their space was designed to fit their needs —— the newspaper. Then, of course, the college itself felt a need to have place for the placement of students and interview rooms for people coming in to hire students

80

were placed there -— also for the aid to students in the way of scholarships and placement for part—time students. All of this was built into the building, and I think it was very effective. However, as you know, when the new president and the new administration came in, they made very radical changes in the building. This did not please me too much. I do not interfere with the new administration, but it bothered me to see a considerable sum of money that we’d spent in the design of that building torn up and opened up. The only reason I could get was the rooms as they were situated were individual rooms for special purposes such as the Honor Court Room, the Newspaper Room, the Yearbook Room, and small rooms for the gathering of 25 or 35 more students. These rooms were being used to format against the administration, which then I discussed this matter with Dr. Darden who was former president of University of Virginia; he said of course students have to have a place to format things against the administration. How in the world else would you have a university unless you have a place where they could format trouble for the administration. He saw no reason to try to open this up but, of course, as you know, if you go on the second floor of that building now, they have opened it up to a big bullpen where one person can sit and see what goes on in the entire second floor. The cost of that, really, I could have put it to better use to make an addition to the building, which they need. That building itself is outgrown.

Sweeney: What ever happened to the plans to build a nuclear reactor under the Foreman Field stands?

Webb: We never had any plans to build a nuclear reactor there. We had a small betatron in the building which is now used by the printing shop. We had some small reactors —— generally what they call swimming pool reactors ——under the sub—stands of the stadium, but we found out that this could be put into the building which is the little brick building now at the rear of Chandler Hall. So we moved the swimming pool reactor into that location, and I think it’s right there today.

It’s walled off, but I think if you look you’ll find that swimming pool reactor there. The Physics Department and most of the universities now are not getting into high energy physics; betatrons, cyclotrons and things like that are terrifically expensive. And they’re not needed as they were back in the beginning. So I guess we found that the need for the reactor was not as acute as we felt at the beginning and so we don’t use the reactor at all at this time.

Beginning of 8/16/76 interview which fills in the gap caused by the theft of a tape cassette from the Archives which was originally recorded on January 14, 1975.

Listen to Interview

81

Sweeney: The first question DR. Webb, in 1964, the State Council of Higher Education proposed that a medical school in Norfolk develop some affiliation with ODC; why was this proposal not implemented?

Webb: You must remember, now, the period of time that this proposal was made in 1964, Old Dominion College was not well financed itself. And to take on any affiliation with a medical school which required funds was out of the question. A number of us who were working on this with the local advisory group that developed the medical school and I served on the committee to determine if there was a need for a medical school in Norfolk. And the committee came up with the answer that it was needed and recommended that it be developed. At that time it was recommended that it be a private school fully supported by private grants, and this was not the realistic approach to the question of having a medical school. The offer was made to cooperate with the medical school providing that they came with sufficient money to build their buildings and physical plant and an endowment which would be, which would produce enough revenue to carry the cost of operating a medical school. Of course, they were never able to get such an endowment and developed only the funds necessary to partially build the school. So, I think the lack of developing some affiliation with ODC was that they hoped somehow to get financial support by being an affiliate of ODC. At that time also they were told very clearly unless they were affiliated with the university they would never get their approval for the school. This quite apparently has been twisted and changed because the school has been accredited and is not affiliated in the, except a very loose way with any university.

Sweeney: The next question is actually a three—part question about the dormitories that were constructed on the campus, so we’ll take up each part separately. Why was it decided to have a private firm finance and operate the dormitory?

Webb: When we saw a decided need for a dormitory or dormitories here at ODC, the state--officials of the state were quite opposed to us having dormitories and did not recognize the need. So we were discouraged in every way in obtaining funds from the state to build dormitories. When we found that a private firm would build dormitories and operate them with our supervision, in other words, we would provide all the rules and regulations necessary to assure a proper operation of the dormitories and that they would take care of collecting the fees and

82

all the finances that went along with it. The Board felt that this way one way we could get dormitories without waiting for the state to be convinced of a need for a dormitory and so the initial step in the dormitories was a private firm to do the financing and operating of the dormitories.

Sweeney: Did any opposition develop because it was a coeducational dormitory?

Webb: We did get a number of telephone calls from the people in the locality when the sign board appeared stating that it was to be a coeducational facility. Of course, we explained to them that one wing would be for women and one for men, and they would not be coed in the way of sharing rooms and that type of thing and convinced them that it was a proper method of housing students. There was some eyebrow raising when we said this is a coeducational facility.

Sweeney: Did the construction of the dormitories represent a change in the mission of the college?

Webb: No, the mission of the college has always been rather fixed in the minds of those that were trying to develop the college. That is, we felt that it had to become a state and not a local university and we had to serve the entire state, and, of course, there would be students coming in from out of state, but to confine us to just this area is not the thing that the developers of the college had in mind. But we knew that opposition was ever present and very strongly stated by such other state-supported institutions - the University of Virginia and VPI and others that did not want to see us have the role of a state university. But those that believed in this college saw a long range that a university without restrictions as to its mission being local only was the answer that we sought. So the dormitories simply enabled us to take students from other areas of the state and give them proper housing and really just enable us to bring about the mission which we had in mind all the time. But there wasn’t no change in the mission. It was, it enabled us to fulfill what we thought was a much broader goal than a local university.

Sweeney: Albertis Harrison served as governor of Virginia between 1962 and 1966, and during his administration there were some very lean budgets for Old Dominion University. Did you ever consider dropping graduate level education because of the budget slashes during the Harrison administration?

83

Webb: We used dropping of graduate level education as one of the levers in trying to get our budgets through to the legislature, but we never seriously considered dropping them. We knew that we'd eventually have to have them and since we’d started to take a step backwards would be the wrong procedure. So, although we, I’m sure, at times considered it, never seriously enough to say we would gain enough by dropping them to make up the budget slashes which were occurring. And the faculty themselves believed in it so strongly that they were willing to do a great deal in the way of assuring a larger size classes in the undergraduate program to carry the graduate level. Although we realized that the graduate level instruction was more expensive. We were not in it strongly enough to gain too much by dropping it and to get it back again would have been a great deal more difficult than to continue on a very reduced level. That’s what we did. We kept them going rather than to cut them out entirely.

Sweeney: Did you believe that any further increases in tuition would be counter—productive because it would drive students to other colleges?

Webb: Up to a certain point that is true that if we would price ourselves out of the field, we would suffer. Many, many of our students simply couldn’t afford to go away to the other colleges because of the cost of tuition and the cost of room and board. Many of the parents were sending their children here because they could afford to keep them at home and house them and feed them but couldn’t afford the cost of sending them away to another institution. And raising tuition too much would have possibly cut back on those that we were counting on to supply the bulk of our student body. And so, we did oppose and always as a political measure probably, we objected to changes in our tuition rate until after the budget was determined. We saw how much we were going to get from the state and then we adjusted our student tuition to pick up the difference to enable us to operate.

Sweeney: Did new federally financed programs passed during the Johnson administration in the 1960’s substantially aid the college?

Webb: No, they did not. We got some aid in capital outlay for buildings, in the case of the physical education building. We got, I believe, $2 million to help enlarge that building, but as far as any of the programs that we were operating (educational programs), we were not very much involved in

84

research to the point that it helped pay faculty salaries. It helped to carry the overhead. We had a very limited federal--money from federal budgets. And I think that this was substantially one of the reasons that we could operate a little more freely and not be told how to operate our programs by the federal government. I know that we had visitors down from Washington to tell us how we should integrate and how we should admit students... with the threat that, if we didn’t, they would cut off our assistance. At that time we simply said, "Well, cut off all you’d like because it wouldn’t bother us at all." And some of our faculty were gaining by being able to do research, but was not in it deeply enough to affect us overall. Of course, the answer today is, well, we won’t cut off ODU’s federal support. We’ll cut off all the federal support to all the agencies in the state (all the educational agencies). And, of course, when they do that, VPI and University of Virginia have very heavy federal budgets (money from federal sources) and they would scream if we were the cause of them losing such support. So I think, the administration today is under a great deal more pressure than I was to follow some of the edicts that come out of the federal government. But, at that time, we were not in any way worried about having a program pulled out from under us because we weren’t substantially in the program.

Sweeney: Why in the early 1960’s did the financial ax fall with such a vengeance on ODC? In the year 1965-1966 the proposed state aid per full-time student for Old Dominion College was $215 compared to $914 for the University of Virginia, $883 for VMI and $862 for Virginia State College in Petersburg. This meager aid placed ODC in 12th and last place among Virginia’s public institutions of higher learning. So, we’ll take a previous question, why did the financial ax fall with such a vengeance on ODC at this time, and did you feel that the school was being persecuted specifically?

Webb: I don’t think that it’s as much a case of a financial ax falling on us with a vengeance as it’s always been there. What is happening, of course, was we were beginning to point out these inequities. In the past, they simply checked your budget, what you had last year, and gave you a certain percentage of increase. This, of course, worked to our detriment. Those who had large budgets were given large increases, not percentage—wise, but in actual dollars. And this caused us to fall further and further behind. When the governor and his group came to visit us for almost the first time in the early 60’s, we asked to get a more equitable distribution of funds. [inaudible statement] The budget director tells me that

85

you’re getting the exact same increase percentage—wise as the University of Virginia is getting. And we admitted that this was the case and pointed out very clearly, too, that if you had a $5 million budget, that 10% of that $5 million would be $500 thousand increase. And if ODU had a $50 thousand budget, it would mean a $5 thousand increase to us. And thus, the University of Virginia or those with large budgets were pulling ahead very rapidly even though we were getting our same percentage. The idea of focusing on the fulltime equivalent student came from this college because I did some studies to find out the total budgets and the total enrollments which were available in the budget figures themselves. By very simple division, came up with the 883 and 862, and so on for these different institutions. The answer was always well, you see they--dormitory schools, it's much more expensive for dormitory schools than for one which is non—dormitory. Also the fact that they have graduate level instruction which is more expensive than undergraduate instruction. Even removing those figures didn’t bring us anywhere near the level of giving that they were receiving. But, as you know, the state of Virginia is not run on logic figures equity in that way. It’s run on the past history and emotion more than any other way. So, we gained, but very slowly, and I note that in the past years since I left this present institution, that they still continue to focus on this idea of how much per student it costs the state of Virginia to train them here and how much it costs per student elsewhere. And eventually, I'm sure, we will take our place and equity will reign, but at the present time it’s a long, slow process of trying to catch up from nothing because a 100% increase of nothing is still nothing. So, until the state changes their view and changes their method of financing and supporting these institutions, we’ll always have trouble.

Sweeney: Did you believe that a communications gap existed between ODC and Governor Harrison and also between ODC and the legislative leaders?

Webb: Unquestionably there was a communications gap, but the legislative leaders were really not the ones that were too much concerned. The budget committee of the state and their officials in Richmond who tended to the matters of programming the money and so on and advising the governor were the ones that didn’t want to listen to anything which cause increases in the budget. Our local legislative leaders

86

also never asserted themselves to show really that they were interested in bringing about a complete change or equity in the system. They all expressed their support for our local institutions, but never acted, concertedly acted to force more attention to it. One or two did, but the majority were willing to go along with the state leadership which was definitely not Tidewater loca--Tidewater localized. These legislative leaders did not stand up for what we needed or sponsored our cause to a degree that we could have moved up more quickly.

Sweeney: So you would say then that ODC’s cause could have been advanced more effectively in the legislature?

Webb: Very definitely. We had some very fine friends who worked for us, but we had also some legislators who believed in doing nothing unless the leadership told them to go ahead. And without total support, you’re not going to get very much with one or two pushing your cause. It takes the entire concerted action of Portsmouth, Virginia Beach, Norfolk, Chesapeake, and Newport News-Hampton. All of that group could really have effectively brought enough pressure to get us moving a great deal faster than we did. But in the long run, we’re going to get our goals although it may take a little bit more time than we’d like.

Sweeney: Last question on this budgetary situation. Did you fear losing accreditation because of the underfunding?

Webb: I never feared losing it. I used it very frequently and strongly because the Southern Association knew that there was a definite need for an institution here and knew that we were also fulfilling a definite need. And they didn’t want in any way to cause us not to be able to serve. When we could show the Southern Association that we were giving the quality of education which they would approve, they were not about to cause us to lose accreditation. They did help us in pointing out to the legislature that a certain level of support was normally the minimum which would be acceptable and keep the pressure on the legislature and not to just turn their backs on us. But we used the threat of losing accreditation several times, but I was never really worried about using--losing accreditation.

Sweeney: Now, 1964, approximately 2,500 students demonstrated against Governor Harrison’s cut in the budget request of Old Dominion College as a delegation of state legislators, including Lt. Gov. Godwin passed through the campus. Is it true that you knew of the demonstration in advance and helped promote it?

87

Webb: I certainly knew of it in advance and did not try to promote it but tried to keep it within bounds. That’s the thing that we were able to do. The actual demonstration was not detrimental to us but very helpful to us. Most of the legislators could suddenly see that we had a large student body that were interested and concerned with our cut in the budget. They, and I talked to a number of them, were impressed at how the demonstration was kept orderly and in good taste. At that time Bill Whitehurst was Dean of Students, and he stood with the demonstrators in front of our library, which was then 49th Street, and knew the placards which were being displayed and saw to it that any distasteful ones were promptly discarded. And the students worked with him to keep it that way. So, really, it was a cheering group and a good—natured group that met the governor’s party rather than an angry or antagonistic group, and it helped us rather than hurt us, I’m sure.

Sweeney: Did you personally arrange for that legislative delegation to make its on—schedule tour of the campus before the dedication of the new Virginia State Port Authority’s pier?

Webb: Yes, I did. I used any opportunity to get them to come through the campus and stop whenever possible. This wasn’t always easy because the legislators didn’t have too much interest in it and would have liked to bypass the group and go on with their tours. But I arranged with the leader of the tour to take (this was the Norfolk group bringing them in) to take them down Hampton Boulevard adjoining the college and also call attention to the college as they passed and turn in at 49th--48th Street, it was at that time, which has long since disappeared as a street right there, in front of the library and make kind of a circuit of the area we hoped to encompass into our campus. This was maneuvered and not told to the leaders of the legislative group but only told to the local people who were carrying the group on a tour. So I guess we did finagle a little to get them to come by here. But we often did that. Quite frequently, when they would come to town, they would say, We are on the bus just to pass by the school to show people what it is. But we persuaded them to stop for coffee and doughnuts and to use the toilet facilities before they went on further into their inspection. So we always managed to get them to stop, even though we had to use devious means in some cases to get them to come in. And little talking, leading of our good local leaders, we always had them here and, when the legislators got off the bus, they were greeted by outstanding Norfolk citizens who were interested in our college and who were of the calibre that

88

they gained, had the respect of the legislators and would listen to our local group.

Sweeney: Those were the days of Mario Savio, the Free Speech Movement and the demonstrations at Berkeley or the beginning of them, anyway, and the time when the Virginia legislature was still dominated by the Byrd organization. I was wondering what effect the demonstration and the whole idea of the demonstration had on these conservative legislators?

Webb: That was, of course, what we worried about, whether or not we could keep in control and keep the few, and there were only a few, of those rabble—rousers on campus. We knew all of them. We knew them by name and knew their attitudes. And we simply worked with them ahead of time to tell them of the consequences of disorderly conduct of any of the rabble—rousing techniques which they might have been tempted to employ. And they had enough sense to realize that this was a very conservative group of legislators and that they could, without raising an eyebrow, cut our budget severely if they just were irritated. So, with this personal talk with that group, it kept them and the leaders from doing anything which would be detrimental to us.

Sweeney: And the legislators’ own reactions, did you get any reactions from them?

Webb: Yes, we did. We got very positive actions--reactions from the legislators that they were pleased that our group was not the activist type that they were reading so much about in the papers and publications and seeing on television. We had them. We had 20 of them, that’s about all in the student body. But the rest of the student body also tended to keep them under control simply by not supporting them and even opposing certain actions that they wanted to take.

Sweeney: Did you ever find out who originated the idea for the demonstration?

Webb: The idea was originated by the group that wanted to just create trouble and dissent. And then, when it got to the leadership of the student body, they felt that this was an opportunity for a positive reaction rather than a negative reaction. And so, the student leaders themselves came up with the idea to let them handle it rather than to have a group of rabble—rousers do it. And the president of the student body

89

and the president of the Honor Council and the other student leaders all got together and kept the thing in a very good rapport with the governor.

Sweeney: The next question is also in regard to this demonstration. In general terms, the student body at Old Dominion University has seemed quite comatose at times. I was wondering how it was possible to get the students so well motivated in 1964, to get them out there and actually stage this demonstration?

Webb: With the local student body, in other words students who go home after class, it is difficult to work up enthusiasm for something of this type. But, again, it required the action of the student leaders. They were the ones that were able to get the enthusiasm. You see, we had no auditorium big enough to hold a student convocation or anything of that type, and it had to come from the clubs, and the clubs consisted then of mostly of social clubs which had a bad connotation in some campuses. But here we used the social club as a method of developing leaders, and with 10 or more male fraternity—type social organizations and five or six women’s, we were able to get the message across to the student body to show up and work up some enthusiasm. But that’s where it came. It came through--mainly through the leadership of social organizations on campus.

Sweeney: Lastly, in regard to the budget crisis of 1964, outside of the students in the community, did you receive good community support in the efforts to restore the funds cut from the budget by Governor Harrison?

Webb: We’ve always received very excellent support from the leaders in the community. Not only would they write, telephone the legislators when we had budget hearings, many would go with me to the budget hearings. And we'd always take the pains to introduce them to the budget committee to let them know they were there. And this is the way that we were able to work, lacking a real Board of Visitors for our own effort. We started with, of course, an advisory group, and they were highly selected local leaders. Bankers, doctors, lawyers that felt that ODU or ODC, a part of William and Mary (it even goes back that far) needed support from the state and that we should be given consideration. These were the men that enabled us to move ahead, and they deserve most of the credit for the building of this university.

Sweeney: I’d like to address your relationship with a specific legislator. How did you get along with Chairman Howard Adams of the House Appropriations Committee?

90

Webb: Howard Adams was a very tight—fisted (financially tight—fisted) person.

Sweeney: You were talking about Chairman Howard Adams of the House Appropriations Committee.

Webb: As I said, Chairman Howard Adams was a very tight man with the budget. And when we worked with him, we pointed out how much more economically we were operating than the other institutions in the state. We hated to use comparisons, but when you’re that low down, you must focus attention on the inequities which are in that budget. And so, we always had a very good rapport relationship with Mr. Adams. Whenever the budget committee met, he was always cordial in his greetings with us and reminded us that we were doing a better job financially than anyone else. But, at the same time, of course, he wasn’t about to spend a great deal more money because he controlled that budget very, very carefully. But he did see the inequities and did help us to start on the road upward.

Sweeney: Could you give an estimate of Rector Frank Batten’s assistance in this budget crisis of 1964 and his overall service on the Advisory Board and the Board of Visitors?

Webb: This would be rather difficult to do in just a few words, but let me say this that Frank Batten was a great asset, and I emphasize great asset, to this institution. He was aware of the people in town that could help us and was able to bring this help to us. His service goes way back when I selected him as a, just really a young boy to be on our Advisory Board. I talked to a number of people in the city as to the proper selection to make for this Advisory Board, and they all came out strongly that Frank Batten, although a very young man, would be in the long run the man to get. So, I visited Frank at his home. This was before he’d married. He was living with his mother and his uncle on Mowbray Arch and received a very fine response that he was aware of the institution and willing to devote his time and energy to it. And he did. I never went to Richmond on a budget request that he wasn’t along, and also he encouraged others to take part. His service was practically indispensable to the advancement of this institution in that he knew the Norfolk leaders, and they respected him, and he was able to enlist, enlist their services for our good.

Sweeney: After the protest over the budget in 1964, a select sub committee of the House Appropriations Committee "found" $6.4 million to "sweeten" the Harrison budget. Also members of

91

sub—committee announced that $4.6 million not listed under colleges in the budget would find its way to the institutions. This meant a 34.5% increase in operation and maintenance funds instead of the 19.4% increase proposed. How did the college come to receive this extra money? Did the student demonstration have a decisive effect on the legislature?

Webb: I don’t know if it had a decisive effect or not, but it certainly had an effect. Everything we did was focused on getting increased support for this institution. The wind fall, so to speak, of this additional money was one of the essential things we needed to keep us going and enable us to expand because this was a growing institution. And to just stay put or even to take slight decreases was impossible in our situation. It’s pretty hard to say from memory just how much more money we received from this and whether we got our share of it. It’s hard for me to say. I feel that we did get a share and whether or not, again, it was equitable compared to other institutions is not involved because that’s the way the state operates its budgets. But we got great local support and our demonstration, I think, did call attention to this institution, which was needed. Very few people knew of the institution, even its existence, and many more could care less. So, as far as increase in budgets were concerned, it was necessary whenever possible to get the public relations built up, to get our publicity through newspapers, through radio, any way we could, through word—of—mouth support. That this was a viable and growing concern that needed federal--needed state support.

Sweeney: Thank you very much, Dr. Webb.

END OF TAPING SESSION

August 16, 1976

Additional Webb interviews ...