 | Board of Visitors minutes January 8, 1953 |  |
Areas of Disagreement.
1. The importance of public relations in athletic policy. Football brings the Alumni
back to the University and creates a fine relationship. It also serves to attract students, if
we have good athletic teams.
2. The feasibility of a 100% simon-pure athletic program. It is essential that we take
a realistic viewpoint. If we were to go back to a 100% simon-pure program, things would be worse
than when we were a member of the Southern Conference, operating under the Graham plan
Alternates: We can either continue on a controlled subsidy basis or drop football
entirely. It is our belief that a controlled subsidy basis is far more desirable
3. Where is control of athletics to be vested? It is our belief that it should be vested
in the Board of Visitors
4. How is control to be exercised? We do not agree with the Gooch Report. We would like
to see the recommendations of the Board of Visitors amended to provide representation from the Student
Aid Foundation either by (a) adding two members to be appointed by the President of the Student
Aid Foundation, or (b) changing the representatives to three faculty, three alumni, and three students,
with the three alumni representatives to be jointly selected by the President of the Alumni
Association and the President of the Student Aid Foundation.
We desire the representatives of the Student Aid Foundation for two reasons
1. The prestige attached to such representation. It is difficult to get men to serve in
a purely money raising organization.
2. Those who provide the money should have some say in how it is spent.
I have investigated athletic policies in Virginia, North and South Carolina. Athletics are
far better controlled at the University of Virginia than at any other place I have investigated.
| Board of Visitors minutes January 8, 1953 | |