University of Virginia Library

Alumni End Use Of Segregated Facilities

the Alumni Board met in Charlottesville."
They were eventually
able to arrange a twenty minute
meeting with the Board and mentioned
their concern over this matter
and others related to the
Alumni Association. It was at that
meeting that the aforementioned
resolution was adopted.

Replied To Letter

On November 5, Mr. Wilson,
replied to President Mannix's letter
of October 29, Mr. Wilson indicated
the concern of the Washington Club
with the problem but cited "considerations
pertinent to our function
as an alumni organization which
require that we view this problem
somewhat differently than either
the student body or the administration
of the University." These
considerations are not spelled out
in Mr. Wilson's letter.

He does indicate, though, that
general meetings of the Washington
Club, including the annual banquet,
have been moved to a non-segregated
facility and that the Executive
Committee is exploring "the
possibility of moving their meetings
to another place." It would seem
that the actions of the Country
Club in closing its doors to outside
groups would make that a necessity.

Mentions His Belief

In concluding his letter, Mr.
Wilson mentions his belief that the
policies and actions of the Club are
in "substantial compliance" with
University policy and "in the
best interest of the Club as an
alumni organization." He further
makes a distinction between policies
which exclude Blacks as members
of the Alumni Clubs and the
use of discriminatory facilities by
the clubs.

The response from Mr. Mannix
expressed his disappointment with
the position of Mr. Wilson and
uncertainty as to the importance
which the Club places on the policy
of non-discrimination. In this letter
Mr. Mannix points out that the
decision to use other facilities after
the first of the year was not a result
of the Club's recognition that they
were adhering to an undesirable
policy, but rather the consequence
of actions taken by the Country
Club. He further challenges the
contention of Mr. Wilson that the
policies of the Club are in its best
interests and urges an immediate
turnabout.

A reply to this letter was
received the following day and
states in its entirety that "I am in
receipt of your letter of November
16, 1970. Your views expressed
therein will be given consideration
in due course."

Highly Unproductive

Finding the Alumni channels to
be highly unproductive, Mr. Mannix,
in a final effort to gain a
favorable response and achieve
some results wrote to Senators William
Spong and Harry F. Byrd Jr.,
as well as to Mr. Santarelli. As of
this date, Senator Spong has been
the only party to reply. In this
letter the Senator notes that no
general meetings of the Alumni
Club are to be held at the segregated
Country Club and that the
Executive Committee is seeking
another location for their meetings.
Senator Spong also mentions the
adoption of the resolution by the
Alumni Board as an indicator of the
good faith of the parties involved.

That is the extent of all correspondence
to this date. However,
further light may be shed on the
matter by relating the contents of
conversations held between the
manager of the Country Club and Mr.
Sullivan with this writer.

Refused To Answer

Mr. Moll, the manager of the
Country Club, refused to answer a
direct inquiry regarding his Club's
policy towards membership by
Blacks. He did indicate the while
there were at the present time no
Black members, the Club did boast
members of various nationalities
and religions, including "Haitians,
Jews, Poles, Catholics, and even an
Indian." It was his impression that
if a Black were to apply his application
would be taken up by the
Board.

When questioned as to the
reasoning behind the Country
Club's decision to close its doors to
outside groups after the first of the
year, Mr. Moll first cited as the
reason "interference with the public
accommodations law." He
declined to elaborate on the meaning
of this statement, and instead
referred to the Internal Revenue
Service, claiming that the maintenance
of the present policy of the
Club with respect to renting its
facilities would result in a loss of its
tax exempt status. This may be a
valid contention, although the IRS
has not found social clubs to be
particularly profitable in terms of
the production of tax dollars. In
addition, it is doubtful whether the
Club would be in danger of losing
its privileged status unless it was
virtually open to any and all who
wanted to use the facilities. That is,
unless it approximated a restaurant
or bar operation.

Most Helpful

Mr. Sullivan, the Director of
Alumni Activities was most helpful
in explaining the position of the
Alumni Association on this matter.
He said that while the parent organization
firmly supported the nondiscriminatory
policies of the University
and encouraged its member
chapters to comply, the nature of
the structure of the Association
itself and the desirability of maintaining
harmonious relations with
all chapters prevented it from doing
much beyond encouragement.

The Alumni Association is made
up of a loose coalition of member
chapters which are essentially
autonomous. The extent of the
support which the parent organization
provides is limited to administrative
matters, including the
arrangement programs featuring
speakers from the University community
and the maintenance of
mailing lists. Mailing costs are borne
by the local chapter except in the
case of a newly formed chapter. As
a result, each chapter is basically
free to establish its own policies,
although an especially flagrant act
or policy might produce a strong
response from the parent organization.

Diverse Groups

Secondly, Mr. Sullivan noted
that there are many diverse groups
of alumni, some of whom are prone
to be a little slower to adjust to
changing situations and a changing
University than others. He cited the
communications gap between the
University and local alumni as a
major cause of this problem.

Accordingly, while the problem
with the Washington Club is apparently
resolved, it is not unreasonable
to expect that there may be
other local alumni clubs using facilities
with discriminatory policies. In
some senses this is due to a general
lack of facilities. For instance there
is only one sufficiently large meeting
room in the vicinity of a club in
Southwest Virginia. Also, the fact
that the number of lack graduates
University is so small as to
infrequently present the kind of
real, immediate difficulties that
would change even the most reluctant
alumni's mind.

Indifference

As evidenced by the correspondence
intentioned, local alumni
clubs seem to have an attitude of
indifference towards the use of
segregated facilities. Student Council
members have related instances
of discriminatory recruiting practices
by the local chapters. What is
apparent though, is the failure of
the Alumni Association to take
forceful steps to both convey the
policies of the University in this
area and to urge immediate compliance.
Mr. Mannix and others indicated
that the failure of the Alumni
Association to take forceful steps
to both convey and urge compliance
with the policies of the
University was their most serious
complaint.