University of Virginia Library

A special meeting of the Board of Visitors of the Rector and Visitors of the University
of Virginia was held on this date at 10:00 a.m. in the Office of the President of the
University, at Charlottesville, with the following present: The Rector, Barron F. Black,
President Colgate W. Darden, Jr., Visitors Barksdale, Coxe, Dunn, Emmett, Gravatt, Gray,
Howard, McWane, Mears, Mr. Smith, Talbott, and Wheeler. Absent: Mrs. Smith (from first
part of meeting only)

MR. MAHON'S REQUEST FOR A HEARING

Before taking up the business of the special meeting, the Rector presented a
letter from Mr. Bernard Mahon, the Commonwealth's Attorney of Spotsylvania County,
requesting a hearing before the Board to discuss certain problems of administration
at Mary Washington College. Mr. Mahon said that he had already discussed this matter
with President Darden and that his object was not a reconsideration of the decision in
the controversy over President Combs

President Darden said that his recollection of his conversation with Mr. Mahon was that it
was entirely concerned with the settlement of the Combs matter. He hoped, however, that the
Board would hear Mr. Mahon

The Board resolved that at the request of the President, Mr. Mahon be invited to appear
before the Board at the regular meeting on June 11th, but that the recent decision reached in
regard to President Combs would not be reopened at this hearing.

APPEALS OF DISCIPLINED STUDENTS

WITHDRAWAL OF APPEALS—LETTERS—PROCEDURE

The Rector read a letter from Mr. Collins Denny, attorney, stating that six of the twelve
students disciplined by President Darden on April 26 had now withdrawn their appeals (the
Rector explained that since the receipt of this letter, Mr. Alexander W. Parker had also
withdrawn the appeal of his client, Mr. Robert Parrish, Jr.) and requesting, on behalf of the
students and their attorneys, that the following points be followed in the procedure of the
hearings (1) That the three suspended students, Edward A. Talman, Frederick Bocock, and
Robert P. Martin, Jr., be heard first, (2) That the appeal of W. W. Archer, III be heard
second, and the appeal of William R. Walker, be heard last, (3) That the attorneys be present
whenever any statements are made by President Darden or Mr. Fletcher, or when any evidence
is brought against the students, and (4) That Messrs. Talman, Bocock, and Martin be granted the
privilege they have requested of presenting their case initially without any attorneys or others
present.

The Board resolved (1) That all of these requests be granted, and (2) That the attorneys
be free to present the Archer and Walker cases in any manner they pleased as regards such
points as admissibility of evidence and facts to be proved, making any changes they wished for
the conservation of Mr. Denny's time prior to his early departure, and that the Board retain
freedom to use its own discretion as to rules governing its consideration of evidence and
arguments.

The Rector read to the Board a letter from Mr. Alexander W. Parker, withdrawing the
appeal of Robert Parrish, Jr. Several members of the Board took exception to an implication in
this letter that an objection by the University to promiscuous conduct by students was a novel
attitude adopted by the present administration. President Darden said that this should not go
unchallenged

The Board resolved that the Rector make an appropriate reply to this letter

The Rector read a letter from Herbert Preston Harrison stating that, despite his withdrawal
of his appeal, he would like to appear before the Board, accompanied by Mr. Collins Denny, to
make a special request. The Board resolved to hear Mr. Harrison later in the meeting

The Rector read letters from the Rev. Dr. Churchill Gibson, Rector of St. James' Church,
Richmond, and from the Rev. W. Holt Souder, Assistant Rector of St. Paul's Church, Richmond,
asking permission to appear before the Board on behalf of their parishioners, Messrs. Martin
and Talman and Mr. Bocock, respectively. The Board resolved to hear the two clergymen, and
the Secretary was directed to notify them by telephone

Letters from Mrs. Bocock and Mrs. Charles Robins were read to the Board

The Rector stated that Mr. Archer's father and Mr. Walker's father wished to be in the room
during the hearings, and the Board agreed to this.

The Board agreed, after some demur, to President Darden's wish to remain outside of the
Board room during the hearings. Pointing out that he would be in his office across the hall
and available for consultation at any time, Mr. Darden reminded the Board that he had already
sat through two days of hearings in reviewing this matter with the special committee, and he
felt that the students might speak more freely if he were not present.

ATTORNEYS AND STUDENTS BEFORE THE BOARD

Messrs. Frederic Bocock, Robert P. Martin Jr., and E. Armistead Talman, and the four
attorneys were invited into the Board room.

Messrs. Charles S. Valentine, Collins Denny, Jr.; Alexander W. Parker, and R. Carter Scott,
Jr., attorneys, appearing before the Board, the Rector advised them of the Board's approval of
their requests, with the exception that the Board might wish later to consult President Darden
in executive session

Mr. Valentine expressed his thanks and the satisfaction of the attorneys with this
arrangement. He then said that Mr. Scott would like to be present in the room when his clients,
Messrs. Bocock, Martin, and Talman made the initial presentation of their case. The Board
agreed to this on condition that it was not objected to by Messrs. Bocock, Martin and Talman,
who had requested a private hearing. No objection was made at this time, and Mr. Scott's request
was approved.

Mr. Scott added that he would also like to have his client Mr. Archer in the room when
Messrs. Bocock, Martin and Talman presented their case. The Board denied this request because
it was in conflict with the request of Messrs. Bocock, Martin, and Talman, already approved

Mr. Valentine thanked the Board, and retired from the room with Messrs. Denny and Parker

BOCOCK-MARTIN-TALMAN CASE

Mr. Talman, as spokesman for himself and his two friends, said that each in turn would like
to review his own activities from the late evening of Saturday, April 3rd until 10:30 on Sunday
morning, April 4th. He said they did not feel to blame for the unfortunate events that took
place throughout this period, that they wished to present their own case on its own merits only,
that they wished to make some comments to the Board after the case was decided, that they wished
the Board to ignore agitation of parents and lawyers to arouse sympathy for the loss of degrees
and related penalties, and to consider only the facts of guilt or innocence; that they wished the
Board to bear in mind that it was not President Darden and Mr. Fletcher who were on trial, that
the background of University discipline was the work of the Student Council, of which he (Talman)
was retiring Chairman and Mr. Bocock the new Vice-Chairman, and that the handling of discipline
was a new and novel matter in the experience of President Darden and Mr. Fletcher

Mr. Martin, Mr. Bocock, and Mr. Talman then testified in detail, and were questioned at length
regarding the events of April 3rd-4th at the rooms they occupy at Nos. 10, 12, and 14 East Lawn.

In closing the argument, Mr. Martin admitted that it was wrong to keep a girl in a Lawn room
all night, but said that his priest, Mr. Churchill Gibson, had said he was "morally clear".
Mr. Bocock said he was uncertain whether a Student Councillor had greater responsibility for
conduct than the average student. Mr. Talman asserted that a Councillor definitely did not
have greater responsibility. Reading from Cavalier Daily editorials, he said that it would be
wrong for the Board (1) to make an example of the three of them, (2) to tar them with the same
brush (same type of punishment) as the students who had been immoral in the Sunday morning
and Sunday afternoon incidents, (3) to fail to take into account their good records, and (4) to
inflict a punishment which would be unpopular with the student body and therefore would be ineffective
in improving student conduct.

The Board adjourned for lunch at 1.30, reassembling at 2:20 p.m.

MR. HOWARD AND MRS. SMITH ABSENT

The Rector introduced to the Board successively the Rev. Dr. Churchill Gibson, Rector of
St. James' Church, Richmond, who spoke on behalf of his two parishioners, Messrs. Martin and
Talman, and the Rev. W. Holt Souder, Assistant Rector of St. Paul's Church, Richmond, who
spoke on behalf of his parishioner, Mr. Bocock

The Rev. Theodore H. Evans, Rector of St. Paul's Church, Charlottesville, was then introduced
to the Board, and praised Mr. Fletcher's methods with students, urging the Board to
turn this incident to the advantage of the University.

PRESIDENT DARDEN AND MR. VALENTINE PRESENT

President Darden and Mr. Valentine having been requested to join the Board for a
discussion of the military situation of the three students under consideration, the Rector
introduced successively to the Board Lt. Cdr. Harry Michael, U.S.N.R., commander of a
Charlottesville Naval Reserve training unit, and Lt. Col. Thomas Wood, Jr., Professor of
Military Science, who repeated in detail to the Board plans previously discussed with
Mr. Darden by which Mr. Bocock might get his Naval commission and Messrs. Talman, Martin,
and Harrison their Army commissions despite the academic penalties imposed on them.

MRS. HERBERT McK. SMITH PRESENT

The Rector then presented to the Board Mr. Richard R. Fletcher, Director of Student
Affairs, as witness, and directed the Secretary to admit into the room the following: the
four attorneys and Messrs. Bocock, Martin, and Talman, Mr. W. W. Archer, III and Mr. William R.
Walker, each accompanied by his father, and Mr. Herbert Preston Harrison

Mr. Fletcher reported the events of April 3rd-4th in great detail often reading from his
notes made at the time of interviews of April 6th-26th during the questioning and cross-questioning

Assessment of guilt of these three students whose suspension he had recommended, Mr. Fletcher
said in answer to a question, was as follows

Martin had violated his housing contract, bringing his date to his room on the Lawn between
1:00 and 2:00 o'clock in the morning, an hour when fraternity parties have closed, and
girls are supposed to be taken home. He had not taken her home until 1:45 when the others
had come to his room. He then returned to his room and "gave countenance to a disreputable
party in his own quarters", being present there himself for the remainder of the night

Talman joined the party, and spent time alone with the girl under discreditable circumstances.

Bocock was the least of the offenders. He lent his premises, and left the party in progress.
He made no serious protest, though he was often awake and up, and the party, never numerous,
could easily have been stopped.

Mr. Fletcher then retired from the Board room

PRESIDENT DARDEN PRESENT

Asked by the Rector for a statement on Bocock, Martin, and Talman, President Darden spoke
in substance as follows

On Monday afternoon, April 6th, Mr. and Mrs. W——— came to see me. They were almost
beside themselves with grief over their daughter. Facing them was about the worst thing in my
experience. The girl had come home that day in a dazed condition, apparently beaten and
brutalized, covered with bruises

The next day I met with Mr. Bocock, Mr. Martin, and Mr. Talman in this room. They said
they had something to tell me. I told them I didn't want to trespass on the Student Council
I told them that anyone who struck the girl would leave the University the moment I knew his
name. I retired from the room at their request. When I came back, they said they would withhold
comments until the jurisdiction of the case was settled. When the discipline of the case was
referred back to me, I told Mr. Fletcher to proceed with the investigation. You know his story.

Questioned about the penalties, Mr. Darden said they were neither the same for all offenders,
nor too severe in any instance. He had set them himself, partly on Mr. Fletcher's recommendations
and partly on what he knew himself. The offenses differed in degree and so did the
penalties. He had modified one of these three suspensions to help the boy get into medical school,
He was unwilling to modify the penalties in any other way except where necessary to protect the
boys' military commissions. On his request, Mr. Fletcher had not made his recommendations until
he had consulted three faculty members, two of whom had spent much time on it

In response to questions about the assessment of guilt among Bocock, Martin, and Talman,
the President gave a summary of their individual conduct that differed in no material way from
Mr. Fletcher's estimate. Mr. Darden added that there was not a shadow of doubt in his mind that
they could have stopped the party any time they liked without the slightest necessity for reporting
or tale-bearing

President Darden having retired from the room, Mr. Valentine presented an argument on behalf
of the three suspended students. Urging the Board to consider the economic position of the three
students and the worry they have endured in recent weeks, he proposed that the Board reverse the
President's decision and modify the penalties so as to give the three their degrees in June

After obtaining the agreement of the Board to some modifications in the procedure previously
agreed on for the hearings to be held on May 27th, Mr. Valentine and the other attorneys and the
students withdrew from the room.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

In the discussion which followed, the point was made that opinions might have been colored
by the brutality of subsequent events. It was pointed out, however, that the three students, knew,
solely on the basis of what they saw at the time, that a bawdy party was in progress. Judge
Smith said that he wanted particularly to have it noted that this matter of suspensions fell
within the final jurisdiction of the President, that interference by the Board in these suspensions
would be an improper intrusion upon administrative matters, that the President, who with several
trusted and experienced members of the faculty had spent much time on this matter, must be
supported.

President Darden, who now returned to the Board room by request, was asked how the Board
could sustain his action on the suspensions without jeopardizing the three students' commissions,
which he had said earlier he wished to protect. He said that he hoped the Board would not
confirm his penalties, thus tying his hands. If he were left free to modify the punishments he
had set, his plan would be to withhold the degree of Mr. Bocock, whose guilt was the least, and
require him to go to summer school. He would suspend the other two as soon as they had taken
their R.O.T.C. examinations

The Board resolved that the President's action in suspending Messrs. Bocock, Martin, and
Talman be sustained, but that the President be authorized to modify any or all of the three
suspensions to the extent necessary to prevent any one of these three students from being
deprived of his reserve commission in the armed forces.

Mr. Howard had left the meeting before this Resolution was made, expressing strong regret
that he could not remain and cast his vote in support of President Darden's action, and Mrs. Smith
abstained from voting on the Resolution because she had been unable to be present at the beginning
of the day's meeting.

The Rector asked Judge Smith to prepare a more formal draft of this Resolution for presentation
to the Board on May 27th.

On motion the Board adjourned at 7:00 p.m.

27 May 1954

The Board of Visitors in special session reconvened on this date at 9:15 a.m. in the Office
of the President of the University with all members present except Mr. Howard, who had been recalled
to Richmond by the Governor for an important meeting of the State Board of Education.

At the request of the Rector, Judge Smith read to the Board the formal draft he had
prepared, as follows, of the Resolution adopted by the Board immediately prior to adjournment
on May 26th

BE IT RESOLVED by the Rector and Board of Visitors in the matter of the appeal from
suspensions by the President of Bocock, Martin, and Talman, as follows:

That it is the sense of the Board that the decision of the President in these cases
was justified on the evidence presented at the time and is hereby sustained. It now appearing,
however, that the suspensions may automatically jeopardize or forfeit the R.O.T.C. and/or R.O.C.
Commissions about to be awarded to the students involved, which constitutes an additional penalty
not anticipated or intended to be imposed, the President is therefore directed and authorized
to make such reductions or modifications in the penalties heretofore imposed, as will assure
that such penalties will not have the effect of preventing either or any of such students from
receiving the R.O.T.C. and/or R.O.C. Commissions in the Army or the Navy to which they would
otherwise be entitled.

The Board approved and adopted the Resolution as read, Mrs. Smith abstaining from voting
because of her unavoidable absence from the beginning of the meeting on May 26th

Mr. Howard was unavoidably absent: Messrs. Coxe, Mears, and Talbott requested that their
negative vote be recorded.

APPEAL OF EXPULSION—W. W. ARCHER, III

PRESENT: Messrs. Denny, Parker, Scott, and Valentine, attorneys, with Mr. Scott's client,
W. W. Archer, III and his father, and Mr. Denny's client, William R. Walker and his father

Mr. Scott stated that he would like to open the hearings with Mr. Archer's case, and make
such variations thereafter in the presentation of evidence on the facts in the cases of Mr. Archer
and of Mr. Walker, evidence on the admissibility of evidence obtained by the University Administration
against the two young men, and arguments on their behalf, as might assist Mr. Denny, who
must take the 1:30 train to Chicago. The Rector replied that the Board had agreed to this on the
previous afternoon and was now ready to hear the two students present their cases in any manner
and order they pleased

Reading from the University Catalogue's section on "Conduct" the sentence that begins,
"Before action is taken on any accusation of bad conduct however, the student concerned will
first be informed of the charge against him", Mr. Scott said that he would attempt to show
(1) that Archer had never been informed of the charge, and (2) that the circumstances under which
the University Administration, in the person of Mr. Fletcher, obtained evidence against Mr. Archer
were such that it ought not to be used against him

Mr. Scott asked the Board to keep in mind two points: (1) He, Mr. Scott, and all the other
attorneys were present simply as friends of Archer and Walker and their families, and (2) The
legal technicalities raised in this hearing would be the work of the attorneys, if any members of
the Board should be offended by them, this ought not to prejudice Archer and Walker

Mr. Scott then presented Mr. W. W. Archer, who read to the Board a 5-page letter written by
himself, appealing to the Board to repeal the penalty imposed on his son. At the request of the
Rector, Mr. Archer signed this letter and handed it to the Secretary, who was ordered to file it.

Mr. W. W. Archer, III recited to the Board the story of his actions in the early morning
hours of April 4th. Following suggestions by Mr. Scott, Mr. Archer then told of his relations
with Mr. Fletcher after April 6th. He denied knowing that Mr. Fletcher is the disciplinary officer
of the University, but said that for a day or two he had been "stopped from going" to see Mr.
Fletcher by his fraternity president, who "said I'd be a scapegoat". He had finally gone to see
Mr. Fletcher in company with two other students who have since been expelled from the University.
Mr. Fletcher had been courteous and friendly, hopeful of keeping the University and students out
of trouble with the lawyers, and promising strict confidence. Archer had asked Mr. Fletcher if he
ought to go home and prepare his parents to expect penalties, but Mr. Fletcher hadn't seemed to
think it necessary

Questioned by Board members as to whether Mr. Fletcher had promised him immunity from
punishment, Mr. Archer would only say that he thought Mr. Fletcher had implied immunity in the
original interview in saying not to tell his parents of the situation.

Mr. Denny, questioned by Mr. Scott as to the stories told by two other expelled students,
now in the Army, said that they did not materially differ from Archer's account of Mr. Fletcher's
conduct

MR. ROBERT PARRISH, SR. PRESENT

Mr. Robert Parrish was called by Mr. Scott as a witness. Mr. Parrish said that on April
27th, the day after letters of suspension and expulsion had been delivered, he had come from
Richmond and accompanied a group of disciplined students, their kinsmen and attorneys in a
visit to Mr. Fletcher. Mr. John C. Parker, brother of Mr. Alexander Parker, had by prearrangement
acted as spokesman for the group, but Mr. Valentine and others had assisted in
the questioning. During this questioning Mr. Fletcher had made two admissions which had
seemed, to Mr. Parrish, to be damaging. When asked if he had kept the students warned
during the many interviews of April 6th-26th about the probability of University discipline,
Mr. Fletcher had at one point used the expression, "I can't say I warned each man". When
asked by Mr. Valentine whether the disciplined students might not have supposed in the interviews
that they were cooperating for the good of the University (preventing court action or
publicity) and were not on trial themselves at all, Mr. Fletcher had admitted that "That was
a possible construction by them."

APPEAL OF EXPULSION—WILLIAM R. WALKER

Mr. Denny opened his defense of W. R. Walker by addressing several questions to W. W. Archer,
III, who said that following his interview with Mr. Fletcher, he had reported the details of the
conference to his friend Preston Harrison of Petersburg.

H. PRESTON HARRISON PRESENT

Guided by questions from Mr. Denny, Mr. Preston Harrison gave an account of the events of
April 4th and of subsequent conferences with other participants and with Mr. Fletcher whom he
described as a friend and counsellor ("like a father to me") both before and after April 4th,
even expressing personal regret upon delivering the letter of dismissal

Questioned by the Rector, Mr. Harrison denied knowing that Mr. Fletcher was the University's
disciplinary officer, but he readily admitted, under further questioning, that he had previously
had conferences with Mr. Fletcher regarding disciplinary matters and the Student Council, also
that more recently Mr. Fletcher had on one occasion overruled the Student Council.

Mr. William R. Walker, Jr. then testified at length in his own defense on the events of
April 4th and the conferences with Mr. Fletcher, the first of which had been preceded by an
agreement among five of the participants as to their manner of testifying to Mr. Fletcher

MR. E. ARMISTEAD TALMAN PRESENT

Questioned by Mr. Scott and then by members of the Board, Mr. Talman said that Mr. Archer
refused at first to go and see Mr. Fletcher "for fear he'd be the scapegoat."

Further questioning brought out, among other facts, the following

Question: How did Mr. Fletcher react when you told him Archer was afraid to come? Talman: He
said Archer would not have to "bear the burden for anyone else."

Question: Did you all think that as householders for Rooms 12-14 you might have to bear the
whole blame? Talman: Mr. Fletcher "brought that into the picture."

Question: Did you report to the others President Darden's attitude that punishments would
be forthcoming? Talman: I think I told them in general

Question: If this affair had been handled by Student Council instead of by the President
and Mr. Fletcher, would it then have been a matter for discipline and punishment?

Talman: Yes, Sir

Mr. Talman then retired

MR. FREDERIC BOCOCK PRESENT

Presented as a witness by Mr. Scott and asked about his interview with Mr. Fletcher,
Mr. Bocock said in substance. I don't remember Mr. Fletcher's exact words. I got the feeling
that the boys who came forward would serve the University and "put themselves in a better
position than if their names had to be dug up in a court case."

Mr. Bocock, excused by Mr. Scott, then retired

MR. RICHARD R. FLETCHER PRESENT

Under very extensive questioning, Mr. Fletcher reported a great many details, often reading
from his notes made at the time of interviews with various participants in the episode of Sunday
afternoon, April 4th. He stated in reply to questions that the penalties recommended by him had
been given very extensive consideration by himself and his advisors, with all factors carefully
weighed. He emphasized that his recommendation of expulsion for Mr. Walker had been based not on
any suspicion of unreported conduct by Mr. Walker, but on facts admitted by Walker himself (1)
Walker was 24 years old, (2) He was a former student, (3) He had nearly two years' experience and
responsibility in the Army, (4) Everything in his record in the University demonstrated that he
was a very poor student, and (5) He had abandoned a teen-aged girl, a guest of the University, whose
host and protector he was for the afternoon, in an apartment to which he had taken her, under
disreputable circumstances highly injurious to the good name of the University and to all of its
personnel connected with the affair

Mr. Fletcher withdrew

Mr. Walker, under further questioning, admitted to various facts heard earlier by the Board,
including his knowledge of the events of Sunday morning

MR. FLETCHER PRESENT

Questioned as to whether he had "threatened to resign" if the Board reversed the penalties,
Mr. Fletcher said that he had neither intended to make such a threat, nor did he recall saying
anything that could fairly be so interpreted. He thought it possible that he had used some such
phrase as that he "would rather resign". The remarks had been made under great stress and under
circumstances that it would now be very difficult to reconstruct. The clear intent of his
comments had been that his position in the University would be utterly untenable if the Administration
were not supported in imposing severe penalties for the type of misconduct that he had been
investigating by day and night along with his other work for the previous three weeks. Mr. Walker's
misconduct was, in his judgment among the most aggravated of all the misconduct in this affair

Mr. Fletcher retired from the Board room

Mr. Denny then made closing remarks on behalf of Mr. Walker, thanked the Board and withdrew
to catch the train for an urgent trip.

The Board recessed for lunch at 1:25 p.m.

ABSENT, MR. HOWARD AND MR. TALBOTT

The Board resumed its special session at 2:15

Mr. W. W. Archer, III testified at Mr. Scott's request, in detail about the events of
Saturday night and Sunday morning, April 3rd-4th, most of them already at least sketchily known
to the Board

MR. FLETCHER PRESENT

Mr. Fletcher, asked to review Mr. Archer's activities, gave a detailed account of Mr. Archer's
actions from Friday through Sunday, reading to the Board many pages of notes on the subject.
He then read all of his notes on several interviews with two other students who were expelled in
connection with the incident

During the exhaustive questioning that followed, much previous testimony was again reviewed
Pressed repeatedly for an explanation of why he had advised a student not to go and warn his
parents that he might be expelled, Mr. Fletcher finally admitted that he had no clear recollection
of giving any such advise. If a student had so understood him and so quoted him, he was not
prepared to deny a student's word. He could only suppose that the question and answer had been
given in such a manner and under such circumstances as to seem irrelevant to him at the time, at
all events, it had made no impression on his memory. It was not the sort of advice he gave
students. The two final questions and answers were in substance as follows

Question

Did you tell the Student Council that you might have "lulled the boys into a sense of
security"?

Fletcher

No, Sir. The Student Council asked me to talk over this case as a disciplinary problem
in such a way that I had every reason to suppose that the discussion was confidential and
privileged. I did not know that persons were there with prepared questions and that my answers
were written down. Somebody quoted the expression that you mention, and I admitted the possibility
that I had "lulled" the students, if one of them said so, for at this University a student's word
is not questioned, but I honestly thought it inconceivable

Question

Much has been said here about technicalities and your unusual methods. Am I right,
Mr. Fletcher, in thinking that this is an unusual case?

Fletcher

Yes, Sir. It is without precedent in my 17 years' experience in teaching and
personnel work at the University

Mr. Fletcher then retired from the Board room

Mr. Scott gave a final argument in defense of Messrs. Archer and Walker, emphasizing: (1)
Mr. Fletcher's "promises of security", (2) his own inability to understand Mr. Fletcher's neglect
to call the students' attention to the seriousness of the situation they were in and the
possible unpleasant consequences to themselves of their actions

Mr. Parker, at his own request, concluded with similar comments critical of Mr. Fletcher

H. PRESTON HARRISON'S REQUEST

Mr. Valentine presented the request of Mr. H. Preston Harrison, an orphan who lives in
Petersburg. Mr. Harrison was not appealing his case, but he hoped that something might be done so
that he could get his R.D.T.C. commission. Mr. Darden had said he could take the R.O.T.C. examinations
only with the Board's approval

PRESIDENT DARDEN PRESENT

Invited to comment on Mr. Harrison's case, President Darden said that he had made no promises
to Mr. Harrison except that he could appeal to the Board, but he had promised that he would find
the money for Mr. Harrison to come back to the University if he decided to apply for readmission

later.

Mr. Harrison, saying that this was his understanding of what Mr. Darden had said, then withdrew

EXECUTIVE SESSION

Mr. Darden said that there would be no problem at all with the military people about the
commissions for Messrs. Bocock, Martin, and Talman, but that the R.O.T.C. people were hesitant
about Harrison, and he would not want to press the matter without further discussion with the
R.O.T.C.

The Board resolved that the decision as to whether to delay the expulsion of Herbert
Preston Harrison, in order to help him to obtain his commission in the armed forces, be left
to the discretion of the President.

Asked to comment on the attorneys' argument that the disciplined students had not been
made aware of the nature or the gravity of their offenses, President Darden said that he had
made the disciplinary attitude of the University absolutely clear at the outset to Bocock,
Martin, and Talman, and they had gone out and told the others. It was inconceivable to him that
any boy involved in this case had been ignorant of his offense or had failed to understand
throughout this whole affair that the University was moving against him

In the discussion that followed, a member called attention to evidence showing that
Archer had been aware of his guilt and fearful of punishment throughout the entire three
weeks of Mr. Fletcher's investigation.

A member said that the technical charges against Mr. Fletcher had been exaggerated by
his own rashness in failing to protect himself; he thought that the Board should issue a
statement setting the record straight

Mr. McWane said that he wished to make a note about Mr. Fletcher. He was himself unfamiliar
with court rooms and legal procedures. He understood the relation of teacher and
student as a special relationship. The integrity, fairness, and frankness of Mr. Fletcher
were perfectly transparent. In his estimation, the stature of Mr. Fletcher had grown hour by
hour throughout these proceedings

The following resolution was offered.

RESOLVED by the Board of Visitors of the Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
that the appeal of William W. Archer, III be denied, and that the penalty of expulsion imposed
on Mr. Archer by the President be and it is hereby affirmed.

A substitute motion, that Mr. Archer's penalty be changed to suspension to September,
1955, having been defeated, the Board adopted the original resolution

Messrs. Coxe, Gray, and Mears requested that their negative vote be recorded.

The following resolution was offered:

RESOLVED by the Board of Visitors of The Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia
that the appeal of William R. Walker be denied, and that the penalty of expulsion imposed on
Mr. Walker by the President be and it is hereby affirmed

A substitute motion, that Mr. Walker's penalty be changed to suspension to September, 1955,
having been defeated, the Board adopted the original resolution.

Messrs. Coxe, Gravatt, and Mears requested that their negative votes be recorded. Mr. Gray
requested the recording of his affirmative vote on the substitute resolution and his negative
vote on the original resolution. Mr. Howard and Mr. Talbott were unavoidably absent when the
resolutions of the afternoon were adopted.

The Rector appointed Mr. Gravatt and Mr. Smith as a Committee to meet with him in the
evening and prepare a statement of the Board's action for issuing to the press and interested
persons

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

On motion the meeting was then adjourned at 6:00 p.m.