University of Virginia Library

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON THE ABOLITION OF FRATERNITY HOUSES AT THE UNIVERSITY:

Mr. E. R. Stettinius, Jr., Chairman of the Special Committee on the question of fraternity
houses at the University, stated that the committee had interviewed numerous persons and had received
many letters from alumni on the subject. He further stated that upon being informed that Governor
Darden would appreciate the opportunity of conferring with the Committee, a meeting with him was
held in Richmond of September 24th, and submitted the following memorandum of the conference:

MEMORANDUM OF CONFERENCE HELD AT 5315 CARY STREET ROAD, SEPTEMBER 24th,
AT 7.00, BETWEEN COMMITTEE OF BOARD OF VISITORS AND GOVERNOR DARDEN

Those present were.

• Governor Colgete W. Darden, Jr.

• E. R. Stettinius, Jr., Chairman,

• James H. Corbitt,

• Lewis C. Williams.

The Chairman asked the Governor to express his views to the Committee on the subject
of Fraternity houses at the University of Virginia. The Governor made a general statement
covering his objection to fraternity houses which may be summarized briefly as follows:

(1) The Governor said that, in his campaign for Governor, which was the first general
State campaign that he had ever made, he was surprised to find a lack of interest in the University
of Virginia. In too many instances there was unfriendly criticism both by alumni and by responsible
individuals who had never attended the University. He felt that this feeling was to be attributed in
part to a separation of students by some men living in fraternity houses. At the same time, he
expressed the view that there was something deeper that was wrong and that perhaps the greatest
trouble is that the boys are engaged in too many activities to permit them to give the close
attention to their studies that a stiff academic course should require.

(2) That the use of fraternity houses brought about an undesirable stratification in
student life. This stratification tends to rigidly circumscribe the life of the fraternity man
almost immediately after his entry into college. He joins very shortly after arriving. In many
cases he knows little of the group to which he is adhering. The making of the fraternity house
they headquarters and social center deprives him of the opportunity of knowing his fellow students
as he should. While it undoubtedly confers upon him benefits-these benefits would be obtained
by membership in the Organization without the separate quarters. The present arrangement adds
unnecessarily to the expense of students, and in the future this will be of greater importance.

(3) That he did not object to fraternities, as such, but felt that, after fraternity
meetings have been held, conditions should be such that the young men would again drop back into
the student body. He favored the maintenance of the organizations.

(4) That his experience in his State-wide campaign also led to the discovery that
too few men who had occupied outstanding positions in college life had made marked successes in
the comunities in which they had settled. This led him to question the elements that evidently
made for leadership in the student body. Solid accomplishment in school seems to play too small
a part.

(5) That he was impressed with the close association existing between V.M.I. men and
the affection of the alumni for V.M.I.

(6) He expressed the opinion that the University of Virginia needed to be strengthened
as much as possible by raising entrance requirements and by dismissing those students who did not
maintain a satisfactory average. He thought this would also require a gradual lifting of high
school requirements in order that students seeking admission might be prepared for University work.

(7) He was also of the opinion that women should not be allowed to enter fraternity
houses except under certain rigid restrictions.

(8) On the financial question and loss that might result from banning fraternity
houses, he said, if the fraternity houses are forbidden at the University of Virginia, he would
not agree to anything that would amount to confiscation, but would insist that the State make
provision to take them over at a fair price.

(9) He felt that students should not be permitted to keep automobiles.

(10) He questioned the value of the ribbon societies and kindred organizations, and
thought that in the interest of work and unity in the student body as a whole a number of organizations
might well be allowed to drop out.

(11) He believed that the gap between high school and college too great, and that there
should be more supervision and direction of the undergraduates. He did not favor anything resembling
rigid discipline but rather sympathetic leadership.

(12) That he had no desire to hurry the conclusion of the Board's investigation, but
suggested February 1, 1943, as a deadline.

(13) He approved the Board's plan that a committee be appointed to investigate and
report to the Board, such Committee to consist of four from the student body, two fraternity and
two-non-fraternity men appointed by the Student Senate, three from the faculty, chosen by the
President of the Alumni Association, this Committee to elect a Chairman. This Committee is to
hold hearings and make a study of the matter and report to the Board of Visitors not later than
February 1, 1943.

(14) There was a discussion of education in general, and it was agreed that a demand
exists for reform in college.

The above memorandum was not made from notes taken at the time, but was dictated the
following morning by James H. Corbitt and Lewis C. Williams, the Chairman having been compelled
to return to Washington at 10:20 p.m. the night of the meeting.

Following a general discussion of the matter, the following statement by the Committee,
together with the resolution appended, were adopted:

The Special Committee of the Board of Visitors, E. R. Stettinius, Jr., Chairman, James
H. Corbitt and Lewis C. Williams, reported to the Board at a meeting held on the 3rd day of October, 1942:

That the Committee had examined the question of the abolition of fraternity houses in
general, had conferred with many persons and considered many letters and reports on the subject,
and had likewise conferred with Governor Darden.

That, as a result of its consideration of the matter, the Committee deemed it advisable
that a hearing be given to students, alumni and other interested persons and recommended that this
hearing be conducted by a Hearing Board composed of four from the student body, two fraternity
men and two non-fraternity men, appointed by the Honor Committee of the student body; three from
the faculty, chosen by the general faculty, and two from the alumni, one fraternity man and
one non-fraternity man, appointed by the Board of Managers of the General Alumni Association of
the University, with instructions that this Hearing Board shall elect a tenth member to act as
Chairman.

That this Hearing Board shall hold appropriate hearings, make a study of the fraternity
house question in general and collect information and data as to how fraternity houses are treated
or governed in other institutions of learning, particularly where the desirability of such houses
has been questioned, and consider and report the effect of fraternity houses on:

• (a) education,

• (b) formation of character, discipline and studious habits,

• (c) life at the University,

• (d) housing of students at the University, if fraternity houses be abolished,

• (e) the financial loss, if any, to the University and fraternities, if fraternity houses are abolished.

Thereupon, the Board of Visitors adopted the following resolutions:

The meeting then adjourned.