(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "The history of Goucher College, 1930-1985"

Frederic O. Musser 



Gaucher College, ^^ 
1930-198S 







^% 




.^Wfc % .^ivf^^^^^l 


^^ 


fiHH 





Frederic O. Musser 

The History of 
Goucher College, 
1930-198S 



When Goucher College was founded in Bal- 
timore in 1885, its mission was to provide 
quality education for women. Goucher 
would pursue that mission for the next cen- 
tury. In this sequel to an earlier history that 
chronicled the college's first fifty years, 
Frederic O. Musser tells the story of 
Goucher's second half-century. 

Drawing on the college archives as well 
as on extensive interviews with faculty, 
alumnae, and staff, Musser presents an 
overview of Goucher's history since 1930 
and looks at the changes those years have 
brought to Goucher student life. He de- 
scribes the war years, when Goucher 
women studied air navigation, radio elec- 
tronics, and naval cryptography ... the 
postwar enrollment crisis brought on when 
the Baltimore Evening Sun published ex- 
cerpts from the chaplain's "sex sermon" . . . 
and the turbulent 60s, when campus pro- 
tests against racial segregation led to the 
arrest of some Goucher students. 

Goucher's second half-century was a time 
of transition and new challenges. In the 
early 1930s, President David A. Robertson 
introduced a radically new curriculum. A 
decade later Otto Kraushaar oversaw the 
move from downtown Baltimore to the col- 
lege's present location in the city's northern 
suburbs. Kraushaar's successor, Marvin B. 
Perry, Jr., faced heavy budget deficits that 
threatened the quality of Goucher's educa- 
tional program. Rhoda Dorsey succeeded 
in returning Goucher to a sound financial 

(continued on back flap) 



The History of Gaucher College, 
1930-198^ 



The Goucher College Series 



Frederic O. Musser 



The History 

of G o u c h e r 

College, 

1930-19S5 



The Johns Hopkins University 

Press 

Baltimore and London 



© 199° The Johns Hopkins University Press 

All rights reserved 

Printed in the United States of America 

The Johns Hopkins University Press 

701 West 40th Street 

Baltimore, Maryland iizii 

The Johns Hopkins Press Ltd., London 

©The paper used in this book meets the minimum requirements of American 
National Standard for Information Sciences — Permanence of Paper for 
Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39. 48-1984. 

Library of Congress Cata!oging-in-Publication Data 

Musser, Frederic O., 1930- 

The history of Goucher College, 1930-1985 / Frederic O. Musser. 
p. cm. — (The Goucher College series) 

Includes bibliographical references. 

ISBN 0-801 8-390Z-5 (alk. paper) 

I. Goucher College— History. I. Title. II. Series. 
LDzooi.GyyMSy 1990 
378.75i'7i— dczo 89-35238 CIP 



To three outstanding women: Elizabeth Conolly Todd, 
who made the writing possible; Rhoda Mary Dorsey, 
who guided and supported the writer; and Alma Eliz- 
abeth Nugent, who made the writing readable. 



Contents 



Foreword by Eli Velder ix 

Acknowledgments xvii 

Part One The Robertson Administration (19^0-1948) 

One A Watershed Year: 1930 3 

Two Restructuring the College (1930-1937) 9 

Three The Beginning of "Greater Goucher" 

(1938-194Z) 29 

Four The Final Years of the Robertson Administration 

(1941-1948) 44 

Part Two The Kraushaar Administration (1948-196-7) 

Five Early Perceptions of Goucher by a New President 

(1948) 57 

Six Completion of the "Minimal Campus" 

(1948-1954) 67 

Seven Completing the Campus: The Final Stage 75 

Eight Goucher's Remarkable Real Estate 

Transactions 85 

Nine Faculty, Students, and Curriculum 

(1948-1967) 92- 

Ten The Alumnae Fund and the 75th Anniversary 

Campaign 118 

Eleven Controversies and Dilemmas 125 

Twelve Student Life in the Kraushaar Era 132 



Part Three The Perry Administration (i<)Gj-i^j^) 

Thirteen Student Activism: The Temper of the 

Times 149 

Fourteen The Committee on the Future of the 

College 161 

Fifteen Major Financial Problems: Reality versus 

Mirage 174 

Sixteen A Final Overview of the Perry Years 189 

Part Four The Dorsey Administration (197 3-) 

Seventeen A New President Faces Old Challenges 

(1973-1979) 197 

Eighteen Other Developments in the Life of the College 

(1973-1979) 207 

Nineteen The Goucher Academic Program 

(1973-1985) 215 

Twenty The End of the First Hundred Years 

(1980-1985) 233 

Afterword The Transition to Coeducation 247 

Notes 253 

Bibliography 283 

Index 285 



Foreword 



^^ta^^^spi 



'espite the major curricular re- 
structuring that took place in 1934, 1958, 1970, and the early 1980s, 
the end product in 1985 bears an almost uncanny resemblance, mutatis 
mutandis, to the academic program with which the college opened in 
1888." This fascinating conclusion reached by Frederic Musser toward 
the end of chapter 19, in which he describes Goucher's academic pro- 
gram during the Dorsey administration, prompts a number of ques- 
tions. What were the bases for these four curricular revisions? Were 
these changes similar to those made in other institutions? If they dif- 
fered, how did they do so, and why? These questions led me to review 
some of the educational developments of the last fifty years to under- 
stand the curricular changes at Goucher College in the context of na- 
tional trends and events. 

Those of us in the field of education view the curriculum as an organ- 
ized response to a series of basic questions. What, for example, is the 
role, purpose, or goal of a college education? Is it to prepare a student 
for a career, or is it to transmit a broad general body of knowledge and 
thereby provide each student with a common cultural background? 
Closely related to this is the question of whether everyone should be 
exposed to a generally accepted canon as represented by the Great 
Books approach, or whether each individual should have the oppor- 
tunity to select one's course of study. Further, what should be the empha- 
sis within each course? Should the student be expected to absorb a vast 
body of knowledge or should one emphasize the methodology inherent 
in each academic discipline? Finally, in a time of rapid expansion of 
knowledge, is it realistic to expect coverage of a field, or would it be 
more reasonable to concentrate on ways of thinking, methods of ques- 
tioning, and on the process of research in that field? These questions are 



just several examples of the diverse considerations undergirding various 
curricula. 

How one chooses to answer these questions depends on a number of 
factors. The political, social, economic, and intellectual forces of a given 
period, when combined with the nature of the academic leadership in a 
specific college, are some of the considerations leading to the adoption 
of a particular curriculum. As conditions change, existing course offer- 
ings are often found to be inadequate to meet the new demands. Hence, 
changes are continuously being introduced both within individual aca- 
demic institutions and across the nation. 

The period between the two world wars witnessed extensive curricu- 
lar change in institutions of higher education. Dissatisfied with the 
results of the free elective system first introduced at Harvard at the end of 
the nineteenth century, and sensing that this system no longer answered 
the needs of a post World War I society, educators began urging the 
adoption of a curriculum that would stress general education for all 
students, regardless of their immediate areas of interest and their ulti- 
mate professional goals. Colleges would emphasize the broad, general 
intellectual trends that would provide their graduates with the skills and 
understanding needed to respond to the changing challenges of society 
and to enhance the quality of their lives. Thus in the 19ZOS and 1930s, 
various colleges and universities created a series of survey and inter- 
disciplinary courses. Columbia introduced its famous "Contemporary 
Civilization" course, Chicago adopted a general course in the natural 
sciences titled "The Nature of the World and Man," and Dartmouth 
instituted its "Problems of Democracy." 

While this approach represented the major trend in curricular inno- 
vation, another philosophy, the Progressive Movement in education, 
grounded in and encouraged by John Dewey, produced an entirely dif- 
ferent curriculum. It shifted the focus from content and subject matter 
to the students themselves. Education, the progressive educators ar- 
gued, is all inclusive and should be tailored to the needs, interests, and 
abilities of the individual student. Instead of only academic courses or a 
curriculum imposed from the outside, education should include all as- 
pects of the human experience and encourage students to reflect on their 
needs, doubts, and confusions so as to reach some understanding of 
themselves and their society and to develop guidelines for their own 
behavior. By the 1930s this focus on the individual had made some 
inroads in elementary and secondary schools, leading a small number of 
colleges, including such schools as Bennington, Sarah Lawrence, and 
Stephens College, to adopt an experimental approach providing an 
individualized program based on the progressive principles of life ad- 
justment. 

These national trends occurred during President Robertson's admin- 
istration at Goucher. How then does Goucher's curriculum of that 
period fit into this larger picture? The answer to this question is not a 
simple one, for the 1934 plan does not fit neatly into either the main 
thrust of general education or the progressive experimental approach. 
True, the eight objectives of the new plan are reminiscent of the seven 
cardinal principles actively espoused by the progressive educators. The 
Goucher objectives include such non-academic concerns as physical 
and mental health and establishing satisfying relations with individuals 



and with groups. Yet they also contain the academic goals espoused by 
those educators who created the more structured general education 
courses. Moreover, the restructuring of Goucher's curriculum into an 
upper and lower division and the introduction of the sophomore general 
examinations are reminiscent of the curricular reforms adopted at the 
University of Chicago, without, however, the sharp separation between 
the upper and lower divisions of the Chicago model. In short, Goucher's 
new plan emerges as a blend of the features of both the general educa- 
tion and progressive movements of the time. The administering of this 
new plan provided for a faculty advisor and a student to develop a 
program of studies based on the eight objectives, one which would suit 
the needs of each student. To assure the attainment of these goals, the 
student was required to complete successfully the Sophomore General 
Examination. Thus, standards of academic excellence were maintained 
while the means of attaining them remained flexible. This emphasis on 
excellence and individual flexibility is a characteristic that many of us 
associate with this College. Thus, the new plan seems to have captured 
the special qualities of Goucher. 

The decades following World War II ushered in a series of fundamen- 
tal changes, all of which would exercise a profound influence through- 
out higher education. These curricular revisions can be described as 
three distinct waves that seem to correlate conveniently with the succes- 
sive administrations of Presidents Kraushaar, Perry, and Dorsey. 

A new era emerged at the end of World War II, an era faced with the 
threat of nuclear destruction, soon to be followed by the threat of the 
Cold War and the Korean War. A decade later the Space Age arrived with 
the Soviet Union's successful launching of Sputnik and the resulting race 
to the moon. New questions then arose: How should the United States, 
now a leading world power, prepare itself for its new role in a tech- 
nologically sophisticated society requiring highly trained specialists? 
Were the reforms in general education developed in the thirties still 
valid, or should these broad liberal courses be replaced by specialized, 
pre-professional courses? Can higher education provide a curriculum 
combining the specialized demands of a technologically advanced so- 
ciety with the general, interdisciplinary courses needed to produce 
broadly educated, cultured individuals? The answer to this last question 
was sought by Harvard University when it published General Educa- 
tion in a Free Society, which Frederick Rudolph (in his Curriculum, A 
History of the American Undergraduate Course of Study since 1636 
[San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications, 1978] p. 258) called a "land- 
mark document." The Harvard Report — the Red Book, as it has come 
to be called — recognized the necessity for rigorous, specialized academ- 
ic programs to solve the problems of a nuclear space-age society. But 
would that be enough? Should a free society not be concerned about the 
individuals who would become the leaders of the future? 

Assuming that interdisciplinary, general education courses would 
develop those characteristics desirable for an intelligent citizenry, the 
Red Book outlined a program that recommended that six of the sixteen 
required courses be designed for general education. Of these six, stu- 
dents would be required to complete a minimum of one course each in 
the humanities, the social sciences, and the natural sciences. A new 
course "Great Texts in Literature" would satisfy the humanities require- 



merit and would represent a reasonable compromise between the ex- 
tremes of Columbia's Contemporary Civilization or Chicago's Great 
Books approach on the one hand and the emphasis on a pre- 
professional, specialized program urged by the opponents of general 
education on the other. A social science course might, for example, be 
titled "American Democracy" and would deal with current contempo- 
rary problems in the context of historical developments. This course, 
like that in the humanities, would include readings of recognized classics 
in the various fields. To satisfy the requirements for the natural sciences, 
the report suggested developing a course for both science and non- 
science majors, perhaps organized in terms of the history of science. 
Thus, a program would be developed that would include "cultural 
breadth and intermingled disciplines" (Richard Norton Smith, The 
Harvard Century, The Making of a University to a Nation [New York: 
Simon and Schuster, 1986], p. 163). 

President Kraushaar arrived in Baltimore just three years after the 
publication of the Harvard Report. His familiarity with this report and 
his work at Smith College in revising the curriculum naturally affected 
his views on higher education. It is not surprising, therefore, to see the 
influence of the Red Book on Goucher's curricular revisions of the 
1950s. The three interdisciplinary courses introduced in 1952—53 and 
the distribution requirements of 1 9 5 8 echo the recommendations of the 
Harvard Report. Nonetheless, Goucher's 1958 curriculum revisions go 
considerably beyond the Red Book. The structuring of all courses into 
one of three levels of difficulty and sophistication responded to the need 
for providing an orderly, sequential exposure to each academic disci- 
pline, and at the same time encouraged a greater degree of academic 
rigor. This combination of breadth and specialization kept Goucher's 
uniqueness in mind. President Kraushaar's mandate to the Special Com- 
mittee on General Education, for example, includes the charge "to 
develop a program in which an inherent flexibility and adaptability to 
the educational needs of individual students would be products of rec- 
onciliation of freedom and control" (Musser, chap. 9). Thus, the empha- 
sis on academic excellence and concern for the individual student char- 
acterized Goucher's curricular developments both in the 1934 and in the 
1958 reforms. 

Events in the turbulent sixties brought a halt to the efforts toward 
educational reform based on rigor, structure, and specialization. As 
students became involved in the civil rights and anti-war movements 
and directed more and more of their time and energy to these causes, 
they began to feel that existing courses of study and the emphasis on 
fulfilling requirements were irrelevant to their current needs. Having 
learned to highlight their protests in the political arena, they turned 
their attention to reforming the curricular offerings. These student de- 
mands, coupled with support from faculty members, produced radical 
changes in the curriculum. 

While the cry for relevance received a great deal of attention, it was 
not the only issue that directed change away from requirements and 
structure and moved the curriculum toward freedom and flexibility. 
Other issues arose from basic pedagogical questions raised at this time. 
The notion of requirements, based on the assumption that all students 



need certain courses because they are essential for all educated people, 
was questioned seriously. No agreement arose among those who wres- 
tled with this dilemma of defining essential courses, and the absence of 
agreement itself raised the question: Why insist on requirements? Let 
the students select the courses which they find important for their own 
needs. Such an approach would transfer the responsibility for education 
from the college to the individual, where it rightly belongs. 

Those who espoused this position found support in Rogerian psy- 
chology, which maintains that one cannot teach anyone else anything 
that is substantive or important. Only the student can learn. Education 
does not, therefore, consist of a teacher's transmitting knowledge to a 
group of students who absorb the material; rather, according to this 
theory, it is a combined process in which teacher and students together 
participate in the teaching-learning process. This being so, what should 
be the content of this teaching-learning process.' In light of the explosion 
of knowledge that had occurred in all fields of academic endeavor during 
the last few decades, coverage of content was no longer possible. There- 
fore, the reformers urged that courses should emphasize processes of 
thinking, of questioning, of experimenting, and of finding supporting 
evidence. This raised a further question: How does one evaluate such an 
educational program? The activists had an answer for this too: elimi- 
nate grades, since they are essentially irrelevant and meaningless. If one 
needs a grade for purposes of the transcript, why not simply use the 
pass/fail option? 

These protests and demands on the part of the students and the 
support provided by some faculty members brought about radical re- 
forms in the college curriculum. Examples are many. Project Change- 
over at Stephens College, for example, asserted that 90 percent of the 
curriculum was irrelevant. Students were encouraged to create their own 
courses, and Stephens would simply provide the environment to enable 
students to learn (Chronicle of Higher Education, 12 July 1967). One 
year later, Stanford eliminated the English, foreign language, and west- 
ern civilization requirements. Departments that still required a foreign 
language, however, had to allow at least 50 percent of the program to 
remain elective (Chronicle, 9 December 1968). Brown University also 
gave students the freedom to design their own courses of study; only 
grades of A, B, or C could be granted, and courses emphasizing "modes 
of thought" were to replace survey courses (Chronicle, 16 June 1969). 

To further encourage innovative and experimental courses and expe- 
riences, many colleges instituted a new academic calendar consisting of 
two regular semesters and a January term. By 197Z over five hundred 
colleges were using the 4-1-4 plan to provide what the Chronicle of 
Higher Education (17 January 1972) called a "chance for off-beat 
study." At the same time, 60 percent of colleges were offering the 
pass/fail grading option as an additional incentive to greater freedom in 
course selection (Chronicle, 6 March 1972). Indeed, during President 
Perry's administration at Goucher, both the 4-1-4 academic calendar 
and the pass-fail option were introduced. In addition. President Perry's 
Committee on the Future of the College (CFC) recommended a number 
of proposals similar to those adopted in colleges throughout the coun- 
try. Distribution requirements were narrowed to include any two 



courses in each of the areas of the humanities, the social sciences, and the 
natural sciences. Furthermore, the CFC suggested that the academic 
program should be more student focused and less discipline focused. 

At the same time, Goucher adhered to more traditional principles. 
Although the CFC proposed a reduction in the foreign language require- 
ment, the faculty rejected this proposal in favor of retaining the empha- 
sis on foreign language proficiency. Even the CFC report questions the 
advisability of drastic change. It states specifically that "these proposed 
shifts in emphasis [are to be viewed] as changes in degree rather than in 
kind, and it [the committee] reaffirms Goucher's traditional commit- 
ment to an undergraduate academic experience which combines high 
quality and flexibility, and experimentation which encourages individu- 
al growth and self-discovery." Once again, Goucher's emphasis on qual- 
ity and on the needs of each student forms the underpinning of another 
series of curricular changes. 

Conditions in the 1970s, however, began to raise serious questions 
about the validity of the curricular approaches of the 1960s. Reports 
from national studies, for example, indicated a decline not only in stu- 
dent performance on the SAT and achievement tests, but also in student 
applications to college. Those students seeking a college education were 
increasingly motivated by a desire to improve their earning power rather 
than the ideal of a broadening educational experience. These problems 
were all exacerbated by the overwhelming financial crisis of the period. 
Headlines in issue after issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education 
reflect its seriousness: "Financial Crisis Worsens for Colleges. Some 
Close, Many Show Deficits" (31 August 1970); "Deficit of Average 
Private College Increases by Five Fold in One Year" (11 January 1970); 
"One Hundred Institutions Reported Facing Fiscal Disaster" (z7 Sep- 
tember 1971). Reports of the financial problem continue in this vein for 
a number of years. 

How did colleges react to these challenging problems? One way was 
to create a new, more attractive curriculum that emphasized practical, 
professional, or career training. Earl Cheit, in The Useful Arts and the 
Liberal Traditions, asserted that a program based on the useful arts and 
professional education provides a "greater clarity of purpose" and 
serves as a valuable basis for restructuring a college education {Chroni- 
cle, 6 October 1975). Along the same line, twenty-three institutions 
received grants from the Carnegie Foundation to develop an alternative 
undergraduate curriculum that included career education, holistic 
learning, and interdisciplinary courses {Chronicle, 10 March 1975). 

This new emphasis on career preparation, combined with the exist- 
ing open-ended curriculum of the 1960s, was not without impact. The 
report. Changing Practices in Undergraduate Education, published in 
1976 by the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education, 
found that general education courses declined from 43 percent of the 
curriculum in 1967 to 33 percent in 1974 {Chronicle, z8 June 1976). In 
response to these trends, the proponents of the liberal arts began to 
mount a campaign against career education in favor of strengthening 
the general education component of the undergraduate curriculum, 
including a return to a more structured approach. Even the popular 
press raised questions about the validity of a smorgasbord approach to 
education and compared the existing open-ended free election of 



courses to a Chinese menu. Professional educators expressed concern 
about the narrowness of graduates from academic programs based on 
free-choice and/or career preparation. President Steven Muller of the 
Johns Hopkins University, for example, lamented that institutions of 
higher education were producing "skilled people who are literary bar- 
barians." 

To counteract this production of skilled barbarians, proponents of 
the liberal arts urged the reintroduction of general education programs 
that would lend a unity and coherence to the fragmented curriculum of 
the sixties, would emphasize rational, higher-level critical thinking, and 
would provide the students with a common core of knowledge essential 
in an age of cultural diversity. "In an increasingly complex world," 
concludes the Carnegie Council's Changing Practices in Higher Educa- 
tion, "expertise has a high value . . . however, not all of society's prob- 
lems can be solved by the specialist. In fact one might argue that society 
does not need more specialists, for the complexity of the world's prob- 
lems requires people with a broad and liberal education, people who 
understand interrelationships between the parts of a problem and who 
have mastered the art of learning so that they can shift the focus of their 
efforts when social needs require it" {Chronicle, 28 June 1976). 

Still, this renewed, broad, and liberal education took different forms 
among colleges and universities. Some, like St. Johns in Annapolis, 
continued with the Great Books approach; others, like Stanford, intro- 
duced a survey course in western civilization which included some of the 
great books; still others created a core program which permitted elective 
courses to fulfill a common core of knowledge required of all students. 
This last approach is one which Dean Henry Rosovsky instituted 
at Harvard. Every student there must elect seven to ten courses specifi- 
cally designed to meet the requirements of "substantive" work in five 
areas; literature and arts, history, social and philosophical analysis, 
science and mathematics, and foreign language and culture. In addition. 
Harvard students must attain proficiency in writing, in mathematics 
through algebra, and in reading in a foreign language. Thus, approxi- 
mately one fourth of the students' undergraduate program is devoted to 
general education. 

Again, in the 1970s and 1980s, Goucher charted a course between 
these two curricular responses to the challenges of professional and 
career preparation on the one hand and broad general education on the 
other. True, there are elements of professional and career preparation in 
the new requirements adopted during the administration of President 
Dorsey. The off-campus experience and the creation of such career- 
oriented courses as management, computer science, historic preserva- 
tion, journalism, and technical writing could be cited as examples of a 
professional development curriculum. But even these courses and expe- 
riences are based on a strong foundation of traditional liberal arts pro- 
grams. No new departments were created; instead, these new courses 
were added to existing departments to ensure that the students have the 
theoretical foundations of an academic discipline to strengthen their 
understanding and competence in the career-oriented courses. 

In addition, to provide a common intellectual experience to all stu- 
dents, the college designed two different inter-disciplinary integrative 
courses which incorporated a large number of the characteristics articu- 



lated by the proponents of general education. Moreover, the 1981 
changes proposed by the Curriculum Committee tightened the less 
structured curriculum recommended earlier by the CFC. The committee 
agreed that the curricular changes should be based on those intellectual 
experiences that would enable students to understand the complexity of 
the problems of the twenty-fiirst century, to evaluate in a sophisticated 
and critical way the solutions that were to be proposed, and to express 
themselves in an intelligent and articulate manner. As a result, students 
chose selected courses in six different academic areas. These courses 
emphasized the methods, questions, and responses of key disciplines. 
While one cannot really separate content from the process inherent in a 
given discipline, the new distribution requirements placed a great deal of 
stress on the process in order to help the students develop skills in 
critical thinking. In addition, proficiency in writing, computer lan- 
guage, and foreign languages was required. 

Once again, Goucher's most recent curricular revisions indicate an 
awareness and a recognition of national trends in higher education. 
Indeed, the College's response to these trends bridged a continual com- 
mitment to quality and excellence and concern with the changing of a 
new student generation. The details of these developments in curricu- 
lum, in governance, and in finances are detailed in the following pages 
by my colleague, Fred Musser. In the process of telling this story, he 
succeeds in documenting the unique place Goucher College holds in the 
history of American higher education. 

Eli Velder, Professor of Education 



Acknowledgments 



T 

-K. he ^ 



he writing of an institutional 
history would be impossible without the help of those who, together, 
embody the institution, and this book has benefited from the support of 
trustees, administrators, staff members, faculty colleagues, students, 
and alumnae. I am particularly indebted to Elizabeth Conolly Todd, 
whose generosity provided much of the time needed to complete this 
project; to President Rhoda M. Dorsey, who invited me to undertake the 
task and then read the resulting text, guiding and supporting me 
throughout; and to Alma Elizabeth Nugent, whose critical comments 
based on multiple readings of the manuscript have left an indelible 
stamp on its style. 

My advisory committee during the preparation of the manuscript 
(Sarah Dowlin Jones, Goucher's Librarian Emeritus and volunteer ar- 
chivist; Genevieve Miller, Professor Emeritus of the History of Medicine 
at Case Western Reserve University; and Kenneth O. Walker, Professor 
Emeritus of History at Goucher College) read the entire text and pro- 
vided incisive and invaluable comments. Miss Jones also helped unearth 
important material, much of it uncataloged, in the College archives. 

The College librarian, Betty Ruth Kondayan, provided me with spe- 
cial access to the archives, and her staff — particularly Barbara Ann 
Simons, Stephen Hahn, and Yvonne Lev — helped me track down leads 
both in the Goucher collections and in other libraries. Registrar Nancy 
J. Englehardt and her colleagues gave generously of their time during the 
preparation of parts of the manuscript; David Healy, Vice President for 
Finance and Planning, provided needed statistics for several chapters; 
and A. R. Maclntyre, Director of Physical Plant Services, supplied im- 
portant documents from his files. 

A number of other persons read one or more chapters of the manu- 
script and produced valuable critical comments: President Emeritus 



Otto F. Kraushaar, whose unpublished memoirs were a major source 
for the chapters covering the period of his administration; Deans Emer- 
iti Dorothy Stimson and Ehzabeth Geen; Dean Emeritus of Students 
Martha Nichols; former Chairman of the Board of Trustees Walter 
Sondheim, Jr.; and Director Emeritus of Admissions Mary Ross Flower. 
1 am most particularly grateful to Professors Eli Velder and Julie Roy 
Jeffrey, who contributed, respectively, the Foreword and the Afterword. 

The time needed to write the manuscript was greatly diminished by 
the generous and frequent aid provided by Larry Bielawski, director of 
academic computing, and his staff members Robert E. Dooley and Lin- 
da Fowble. 

Many other individuals — far too many to identify specifically — 
contributed to the undertaking in a variety of ways; indeed, I encoun- 
tered nothing but gracious assistance on the part of all to whom I turned. 
To those who gave so generously, my very real thanks. Collectively, you 
are — to borrow from President Dorsey — what makes Goucher such a 
grand place. 



Part One 



-^^ ^^^ 



The Robertson 

Administration 

( I 9 3 - I 9 4 8 ) 



I 



I 



^^^' 




ONE 



A Watershed Year 
1930 



T 

-A. he [ 



he purpose of this book is to 
bring up to date The History of Goucher College by Anna Heubeck 
Knipp and Thaddeus P. Thomas, published by Goucher College in 
19^8. The year was chosen not only as a publication date but as the end- 
point for the earlier volume because it represented the fiftieth anniversa- 
ry of the opening of the College to students in September 1888. While 
the present study is intended to be a sequel to Knipp and Thomas's 
authoritative work, the year 1 9 3 o, the first year of the administration of 
President David Allan Robertson, was clearly a watershed year, marking 
the beginning of a new period in the history of the College, one charac- 
terized by an administration significandy different from all previous 
ones. This account will therefore begin in 1930 and overlap its pre- 
decessor by eight years, though the treatment of factual detail during 
this period will not be entirely repetitive. It will also be necessary to 
glance back briefly to the Guth administration in order to contrast it 
with the radically different approach of President Robertson. 

The announcement of the choice of Dr. David Allan Robertson in the 
May 26, 1930, reporttotheBoardof Trustees by Mr. Edward L. Robin- 
son, chairman of the committee to select a president of Goucher Col- 
lege, was probably received with a corporate if inaudible sigh of relief. 
Morale, among the students especially but also among faculty members 
and administrators, had been at a low ebb from 1926 to 1929 as a result 
of the power vacuum caused by the illness of President Guth. The elec- 
tion of Dr. Robertson gave promise of restoring to the institution a sense 
of leadership and purpose at a time when these qualities were desper- 
ately needed.' 

Since a detailed biographical sketch of President Robertson appears 
in Knipp and Thomas's history (pp. 323-32), only the essential outline 
need be repeated here. 

Goucher Hall 




President David A. Robertson, 1930-48 



Educated at the University of Chicago, Dr. Robertson taught Enghsh 
there for nineteen years. He was secretary to the president from 1906 to 
1920 and dean of the Colleges of Arts, Literature, and Science from 
1919 to 192,3. During the latter period he served as secretary of the 
Association of American Universities, and from 1924 to 1930 he was 
assistant director of the American Council on Education, with head- 
quarters in Washington. Dr. Robertson was a voluminous writer and a 
respected expert on higher education. In his personality and his ap- 
proach to college administration, he was the perfect antithesis to his 
predecessor. President William Westley Guth (1913—29). 

President Guth had been a man of fierce determination, considered 
by many both blunt and tactless in speech and sometimes ruthless in 
action, but basically honest and sincere. Dean Emeritus Dorothy Stim- 
son provides an interesting illustration. The Board of Trustees ruled on 
May 24, 1926, that any students who married would not be permitted 
to continue as students, except that, in the case of seniors, the president 
could bring the matter to the Executive Committee, which would make 
an exception if it considered it desirable to do so. (The Executive Com- 
mittee repealed this regulation on May 17, 1932, allowing the president 
to use his discretion in the case of a student who married.) Dean Stimson 
observed that Guth had the unfortunate habit of "saying wise things the 
wrong way apropos the marriage situation. In chapel one day he said to 
the group that before they decided to get married, please consult him. 
He said it in such a way that some of the students told me later that the 
senior class had almost risen up and walked out on him. He was right in 



telling them of the trustee ruhng but he put it so badly as to arouse great A Watershed Year 
feeling."- 

Dr. Guth was an autocrat who enjoyed power, was never loath to 
exercise it, and very loath to share it. He held the reins of government 
firmly in his own hands, making all decisions, usually without consult- 
ing anyone. According to Judge Roszel Thomsen, former chairman of 
the Board of Trustees, Dr. Guth purchased the 421 acres of land in the 
county "with the knowledge of only one trustee." ' Mary T. McCuriey, 
former director of Vocational Guidance Service, reports that during Dr. 
Guth's later years some faculty members found personal encounters 
with him so painful that they entered and left Goucher Hall by the St. 
Paul Street door to avoid passing his office. •• 

Even so. Dr. Guth placed all who have been associated with Goucher 
since his administration heavily in his debt. He eradicated the nearly $ i 
million debt that faced the College when he took office; tripled the 
student enrollment, the size of the faculty, and the number of buildings; 
more than quadrupled the number of books in the library; increased the 
endowment from just under $104,000 to just under $2,400,000; and 
purchased without debt the 421 acres of Towson land that would be- 
come the present campus.'' These accomplishments were unprecedented 
in the history of the College, and, taken together, represent an extraordi- 
nary achievement by any standard. 

Dr. Guth was, in short, a doer, an exceptionally effective leader to 
whom the College owed its survival, however abrasive his manner or 
rough his modus operandi may have been.*' His effectiveness collapsed, 
however, when he became critically ill in 1926 from an apparently 
undetermined disease that reduced his natural immunity and altered his 
personality. From this time until his death in 1929, administrative and 
academic business at the College came essentially to a halt. The only 
faculty body with power to legislate was the Board of Control, whose 
chairman was the ailing president, and its authority was limited to 
purely academic matters. It met only twice in 1927 to deal with abso- 
lutely essential business, four times in 1928 when Dr. Guth's health had 
temporarily improved, and then not until April 29, 1929, ten days after 
his death. At that point neither the Curriculum Committee nor the 
College Council had met for three years. And, of course, the "4-2-1 
Give-or-Get-for-Goucher" campaign that was to raise money for the 
building of the Towson campus had never really extended beyond the 
alumnae. Small wonder, then, that morale was at its lowest possible ebb 
when Dr. Guth died in April, 1929.'' The situation improved the follow- 
ing year under two successive acting presidents, first Professor Hans 
Froelicher until his death in January, 1930, then Dean Dorothy Stimson 
until the succession of President Robertson on July i . But only the actual 
presence of a new president could fully restore the spirit of the commu- 
nity. 

The fact that President Robertson was the very antithesis of President 
Guth both in personality and in his approach to governance is inter- 
estingly expressed in a recent letter to the author by a Goucher graduate, 
Ethel Stiffler Carpenter, '22, whose college years fell entirely within the 
Guth administration but who attended President Robertson's inaugura- 
tion. She writes that following that ceremony she was invited to the 
home of a very prominent older alumna for tea. 



>XTien she had served us, she settled herself very complacently in an 
appropriate chair and with great satisfaction announced: "At last Goucher 
has a president who is a gentleman\" 

1 never had the opportunity to become acquainted with Dr. Robertson. 
He seemed the suave diplomat who would carefully consider every move, as 
in a chess game. Probably he was just what Goucher needed at that time. But 
by stepping on toes, shoving people out of the way, crashing through obsta- 
cles, making many mistakes, did Dr. Guth do more for the college of that 
period than could have been achieved in any other way? 

Whatever the answer to that rhetorical question may be, the fact 
remains that David A. Robertson represented a new presidential person- 
ality with an entirely different approach to College administration from 
that of his predecessor. Those who knew him describe President 
Robertson's personality as "shy," "aloof," "austere," and even "stuffy," 
but at least one colleague who worked particularly closely with him. 
Professor Clinton I. Winslow, described his own relations with Dr. 
Robertson as "warm."^ In any case, President Robertson was generally 
recognized as a brilliant scholar with a clear vision of the way the 
College's mode of governance and its curriculum should develop during 
his tenure. 

Dr. Robertson was a formal but persuasive speaker and writer, and he 
used his powers of rhetoric effectively during his first few months in 
office in addresses to the Goucher community. One of his most signifi- 
cant early statements came in his report to the Board of Trustees on 
October 6, 1930. In this report he emphasized three essential areas of 
concern, each of which would play a major role in the evolution of the 
College during his administration. 

First, he addressed the matter of college governance, stressing a need 
for "conference and cooperation" among the officers of the College, 
with overall administration based on "centralized control with de- 
centralized responsibility." This clearly revealed a democratic view, con- 
trasting sharply with the paternalistic, even monarchical, methods of 
previous administrations. 

Second, he called attention to the need to improve financial opera- 
tions, including the appointment of a business manager. (During the 
acting presidency of Hans Froelicher and most of that of Dorothy Stim- 
son in 1929—30, the widow of President Guth had served as business 
officer. When she resigned on May i, 1930, the trustees assigned her 
duties to acting president Stimson.) In connection with fiscal matters. 
Dr. Robertson also mentioned the importance of a published president's 
report and financial statement. He stressed the need to improve college 
publicity even though, ironically, he had withheld for financial reasons 
the appointment, authorized by the Board of Trustees, of a director of 
publicity. Most important of all, in another radical departure from 
past Goucher history, he recommended the establishment of a college 
budget.'' 

Finally, Dr. Robertson emphasized the fundamental importance of 
"a clear, convincing educational program," whose outgrowth would be 
the revolutionary curricular reform (the Goucher Plan) of 1934.'° 

While each of these three basic areas — governance, finance, and 
curriculum — affected directly or indirectly the concerns of more than 
one of the bodies most vitally interested in the College, namely, alum- 




A Watershed Year: i^jo 



May Day, 1930 



nae, trustees, administrators, faculty, and students, each of these five 
groups assigned different priorities to President Robertson's three top- 
ics. That all alumnae are by definition former students of the College 
and that some trustees, administrators, and faculty are also alumnae 
presents interesting problems of perspective for certain individuals; still, 
most people with such double or triple involvements probably adopt the 
viewpoint of whichever constituency they are most immediately con- 
cerned with at the time. All the same, there remain five distinct points of 
view to reconcile (not counting those of the public at large and the 
nonadministrative staff ), and any college president confronts the special 
problem of having to harmonize the efforts of all these groups — which is 
one way a president earns a salary and, if successful, supporters. We can 
assess President Robertson's performance in this respect only after a 
detailed analysis of the problems with which he had to cope. 

In general — but with many individual exceptions, no doubt — the 
alumnae in the thirties and forties appear to have been particularly 
conscious of the promise held out by President Guth for a "Greater 
Goucher" in the county, and of the heroic efforts the alumnae had made 
to raise individually $421 as part of the unfinished "4-Z-1" campaign of 
the twenties. As we shall see, during the Robertson administration the 
alumnae exerted very strong pressure on the president and the Board of 
Trustees to forge ahead, despite seemingly insuperable financial obsta- 
cles, with the building of the new campus in Towson. They therefore 
played a major role in the dramatic decisions and events that marked the 
middle and latter part of the Robertson era, even though the president — 
with good reason, considering the financial outlook — failed to mention 
building a new campus when he presented his initial program in 1930. 

Like the alumnae, the administrators (other than the president) had 
their particular concerns and involvements during this period, but the 



most prominently active groups were the faculty, the trustees, and the 
students. 

A reader of, inter alia, the official college publications, trustee and 
faculty minutes, and the Goucher College Weekly (as the student news- 
paper was then called) issues of 1930-48 cannot fail to be struck by the 
way trustees, faculty, and students lived through this era of Goucher 
history largely unaware of one another's activities, each committed in its 
own fashion to the well-being of the institution, but with different con- 
cerns and preoccupations, all striving to achieve certain goals, and all 
frustrated by the same opposing forces. This explains the organization 
of the rest of part i in an attempt to recount and interpret the history of 
Goucher College from 1930 to 1948. The first ten years of the 
Robertson period seem to provide a particularly clear instance of three 
bodies whose aspirations were basically similar and whose frustrations 
stemmed from the same fundamental sources, but whose immediate 
preoccupations and responsibilities were, on the surface, quite different. 
To blend the efforts of these superficially disparate groups into a harmo- 
nious force that would, by combining different strengths, win a very 
difficult struggle was the task of the president. 

Chapters 2, 3, and 4 will consider the concerns of the faculty, preoc- 
cupied first by governance, later by the curriculum; the trustees, pri- 
marily involved with fiscal and physical matters; and the students, af- 
fected, of course, by faculty and curriculum, but most immediately by 
their milieu, including their active participation in an institution that 
largely determined their lives for four crucial years and which later they 
came to regard as their alma mater. 



TWO 



Restructuring 
the College 

( I 9 3 - I 9 3 7 ) 



T 

-A. heB 



he Board of Control, with Pres- The Faculty Initiative 
ident Robertson's encouragement, lost httle time before beginning to 
dehberate on the future of the College.' On December i8, 1930, three 
months after he had formally presented his program involving gover- 
nance, finance, and curriculum, the president reported to the Executive 
Committee of the Board of Trustees that the Board of Control was 
considering the establishment of a form of public commendation for the 
distinguished scholarship of freshmen, sophomores, and juniors, and 
departmental honors (later called special honors) for seniors, the first 
official recognition of academic distinction — other than Phi Beta 
Kappa — in the College's history. The Board of Control was also weigh- 
ing the possibility of offering advanced standing by examination to 
students completmg the work of the freshman year while enrolled in 
certain Baltimore public schools.- Beyond this, the board considered the 
whole matter of Goucher's admissions requirements and their admin- 
istration, as well as the tutoring of students, the shape of the college 
calendar, and the organization of courses within the academic year.' 

Not to be outdone by the vigorous activity of the Board of Control, 
the Board of Instruction began a study of the purposes of the College 
and of each department, a process that would later culminate in the 
formulation of the eight objectives, the heart of the new curriculum of 
1934."* The trustee Executive Committee devoted part of its March 16 
meeting to making sure that this departmental labor was not in vain: the 
committee legitimized the existence of the departments themselves. Tak- 
ing note of section 2 of the charter of Goucher College, which states that 
"said College may have as many departments as the Trustees shall deter- 
mine," the Executive Committee voted that the following comprised the 
academic departments of the College: Biology, Chemistry, Economics 
and Sociology, Education, English, Fine Arts, German, Greek, History, o 




L.iwn parry, 1930s 



Latin, Mathematics, Philosophy, Physical Education, Physics, Physio- 
logy and Hygiene, Political Science, Psychology, Religion, and Romance 
Languages. Thus, the de facto departments of the College became de 
jure. 



Reorganization On February 9, 193 1, a committee on academic reorganization chaired 

of the Faculty by history Professor Eugene N. Curtis brought to the Board of Control a 

report containing five plans for the organization of the College. Two 
extreme plans, one very progressive, the other very conservative, won 
most of the votes, but the board divided equally between the two. After 
three months of meetings with no clear resolution between the opposing 
sides, the board invited President Robertson to express his views, and on 
May zo, 193 1, he suggested that "we could be assured of being in the 
line of progress if we had a large group with established standing com- 
mittees and an executive council."^ This presidential endorsement car- 
ried the day for the progressive plan, which recommended new pro- 
cedures for the appointment, promotion, tenure, and dismissal of 
faculty and advocated the creation of two new bodies, the Faculty and an 
executive council (later named in the by-laws "The President's Coun- 
ro cil") to replace the existing Boards of Instruction and Control. The 




Junior-Senior Garden Party, 1934 



Board of Trustees, adopting the necessary new by-laws, ratified the 
progressive plan on December 7, 193 1.* 

We can see how progressive the new organizational structure was by 
contrasting it with the past and by measuring its longevity. The Board of 
Control recommended, and the Board of Trustees concurred, that fac- 
ulty members should be appointed by the president in consultation with 
the departments concerned and subject to the approval of the Board of 
Trustees. It also proposed that after three years of service in any rank, 
the reappointment of a faculty member should be "indeterminate," that 
is, should imply tenured status. The idea of tenure was still relatively 
new, and Goucher had certainly never before adhered to it. ■^ Had it done 
so. President Guth would have had considerable difficulty in dismissing 
such a popular professor as Joseph F. Shefloe (in whose honor the alum- 
nae gave and named the College's language laboratory) and would 
probably not have attempted to dismiss Professor Hans Froelicher. To- 
day, of course, tenure is all but universally accepted, though the normal 
qualifications for achieving tenured status are now much more compli- 
cated than Goucher's "three years in any rank" provision of 193 1. 

The Board of Control further recommended establishing a Dismiss- 
als Committee to hear cases involving the dismissal of tenured instruc- 
tors or of any faculty members above that rank. This, too, was entirely 



The Robertson new at Goucher. Today the structure and functioning of the Dismissals 

Administration Committee is almost identical to what the Board of Control recom- 

mended and the Board of Trustees approved in 193 1, though the Dis- 
missals Committee's original role is now partly lodged in the Grievance 
Committee. 

Both the Board of Control and the Board of Trustees agreed that 
"recommendations for promotion in rank shall be made by the presi- 
dent after consultation with the department concerned," a procedure 
that differs from present practice only in the current stipulation requir- 
ing also a nondepartmental recommendation to the president from the 
Committee on Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure.** 

These changes established clear principles of procedure and in- 
stituted important safeguards affecting individual faculty members 
which did much to improve the morale of the faculty; but of even greater 
significance to College governance was the adoption of by-laws abolish- 
ing the Boards of Control and Instruction and replacing them with the 
Faculty and the President's Council. This action amounted, in the words 
of Knipp and Thomas, to "an extension of the academic franchise.'"^ In 
reality, it was less an extension than a beginning of true faculty participa- 
tion in college governance. President Robertson considered the adop- 
tion of these by-laws "the most significant action of the year" and 
reported on "the prompt organization of these two bodies and active 
work by members of the faculty in the two official bodies and in thirty 
committees of the faculty."'" Bearing in mind that the faculty of 
Goucher College had never before had a single standing committee, one 
can imagine how this new legislation changed the daily life of practically 
every member of the teaching staff. The Faculty (in its legislative role) 
and the President's Council remained the primary legislative bodies of 
the College until the creation of the College Assembly in 1970. 



Reorganization of Having reconstituted its legislative role, the Faculty proceeded to reor- 

the Curriculum ganize itself in terms of the curriculum. At its first meeting, on December 

14, 193 1, the Faculty received and approved a report from the Commit- 
tee on Curriculum recommending the distribution of departments into 
three groups: (i) languages, literatures, and fine arts; (2) the sciences; 
(3) philosophical and social studies." In 1933 the first chairmen of the 
three faculty groups — then called I. Humanities, II. Social Science, and 
III. Science — were appointed; in 1951-52 the groups changed their 
names to Divisions I, II, and III; and in 1955—56 they became (and 
remain today) Faculties I, II, and III. Their composition has varied over 
the years, some departments having changed their "address" (like Re- 
ligion, long classsified in Faculty II but now in Faculty I, and Dance, 
which began life as part of the Physical Education Department — itself 
rather illogically housed in Faculty III, the Natural Sciences and Mathe- 
matics.'- Dance is now an independent department appropriately 
lodged in Faculty I, Language, Literature, Philosophy, Religion and the 
Arts.) 

The traditional function of the three Faculties has been to coordinate 
the work of related departments, sponsoring cooperation while avoid- 
ing inappropriate curricular overlap, and representing in the political 
'^ arena the collective interests of their constitutent departments. 



r 


1^ 




If' ■ 








Physics laboratory on the old campus 



In 1932, before attacking the basic problem of overhauling the entire 
academic program, the Faculty dealt with several smaller but significant 
curricular matters. The Committee on Admissions submitted a report, 
adopted by the Faculty on February z, which allowed the admission of 
students whose preparation was "irregular" but whose previous aca- 
demic work, scholastic aptitude test, and recommendations gave evi- 
dence of the students' capacity to succeed at Goucher. The committee 
also recommended establishing a standing admissions committee com- 
posed of the dean, six faculty members, and the director of admissions. 
The new committee began work in 1933, and in 1934 the Executive 
Committee of the Board of Trustees created the office of Director of 
Admissions and appointed Dr. Naomi Riches, assistant professor of his- 
tory, to fill it. This relieved the registrar, Carrie Mae Probst, '04, of 
responsibility for admissions, a task she had coped with for many years 
but could no longer handle when the new curriculum of 1934 placed 
unaccustomed burdens on her office. 

The major product of the faculty's endeavors in the years 193Z— 34 
was, however, the restructuring of the curriculum. President Robertson, 
addressing the faculty meeting of October 17, 1932, called attention to 
the efforts, begun in 1930, "to define the objectives of the College, of 
departments, and of individual courses. . . . We realize," he said, "that 
the teacher is more important than the course. If we can determine what 



The Robertson we want a Goucher graduate to be, we may as teachers set out to attain 

Administration this end. Even though the curriculum is not the principal thing, it may be 

utilized as a device for helping us to achieve our purpose." The president 

then touched on the central issue: 

The problem which confronts us now is one of general education. Our 
present practice is to require certain courses. The following questions natu- 
rally arise: Why do we require these courses? Are the students really getting 
from the courses what we intend them to get? What is the relation of each 
required course to our general objectives? Would some entirely different 
program be preferable for the accomplishment of our purpose? 

He then went on to encourage the departments and committees to set 
aside departmental and even financial concerns and to "try for an ideal 
program first and then limit [it] if we are obliged to."'^ 

The Faculty took him at his word. Chaired by Dr. Robertson himself, 
the Curriculum Committee worked tirelessly on the substance and de- 
tails of the new academic program, which it brought to the Faculty in the 
second semester of 1933-34. During that semester the Faculty met 
fifteen times, a new record. ''' There were five meetings in April and six in 
May. On May 25, 1934, President Robertson had the satisfaction of 
reporting to the Executive Committee of the board that on May 14 the 
Faculty had approved unanimously the new time schedule and had 
voted 55-4 in favor of the new curriculum. 1^ 

Most of the details of what came to be known as "The Goucher Plan" 
were not, in themselves, unique to Goucher. What marked the program 
as highly original and brought it national attention was the way old and 
new elements were combined and the way the plan was implemented. i^ 
Its proponents hoped the plan would respond to three basic criticisms of 
higher education frequently voiced at the time in somewhat the follow- 
ing way: 

I. Specific course requirements tend to be too inflexible, ignoring 
different levels of individual students' preparation. 

z. Teaching techniques currently overemphasize the acquisition of 
knowledge without sufficient encouragement of independent 
thinking. 

3. Academic accounting in terms of "credit hours" isolates individu- 
al semester courses, which are forgotten as soon as the credits have 
been deposited in the registrar's bank.'^ 

The first feature of the new plan was to divide the curriculum into two 
parts, the lower division and the upper division. The lower division was 
planned to occupy primarily the first two years and to concern itself 
with general education. The upper division, normally the last two years, 
required the student to devote about half her time to a field of major 
concentration. 

This approach differed little from the usual distribution of breadth 
and depth among the four undergraduate years, and there was, indeed, 
not too much that was innovative about the upper division concept 
except the requirement that students must pass six hours of comprehen- 
sive examinations in their major at the end of the senior year. Moreover, 
there was no total break between the two divisions: freshmen and soph- 
14 omores with adequate preparation could elect upper division courses. 




Restructuring 
the College 



Goucher's float in the NRA parade, 1933 



and since the major field was to occupy approximately one half of the 
students' time in the junior and senior years, upper classmen were free to 
elect lower division courses in order to explore new areas. 

The lower division, however, had many innovative features, the most 
distinctive being the emphasis on the "eight objectives." In a statement 
called "Progressive Education at the College Level" broadcast over Bal- 
timore radio station WCBM on November 6, 1935, President Robert- 
son outlined the salient features of "The Goucher Plan": 

To the question "What is college for," the answer of Goucher College is 
not in terms of semester hours or required courses, but in terms of the life 
activities of an educated American woman of today and tomorrow, in terms 
of realistic objectives of general education towards the attainment of which 
we require each student to make some progress. 

These eight objectives are: (i) to establish and maintain physical and 
mental health, (z) to comprehend and communicate ideas in English and a 
foreign language, (3) to understand the scientific method in theory and 
application, (4) to understand the heritage of the past in its relation to the 
present, (5) to establish satisfying relations with individuals and with 
groups, (6) to utilize resources with economic and aesthetic satisfaction, (7) 
to enjoy literature and the other arts, (8) to appreciate religious and philo- 
sophical values."* 

Reasonable progress towards the eight objectives is required by the end of 
the second college year. 

How does this requirement differ from requirement of courses? The differ- 
ence is the same as that which exists in the American Army between com- 
mands and orders. A command must be executed at once in a prescribed way. 
"Shoulder arms," "Forward, march," "Halt," — these are commands. Or- 
ders are statements of objectives to be attained, with responsibility for find- 
ing ways to attain the objectives placed upon the person to whom the order is 




Baseball team, 1930s 



A carefully selected group of guidance officers was responsible for 
working out with the lower division students their programs of the first 
two years. Each officer dealt with a relatively small number of students, 
having all available information concerning their background, interests, 
aptitude, health, and probable future needs. Each student was expected 
to plan her schedule, under guidance, with a view to broadening her 
general education and preparing herself for the series of tests, mostly 
administered at the end of the sophomore year, that would qualify her 
for advancement to the upper division. These examinations attempted 
to measure the students' progress toward fulfillment of the eight objec- 
tives cited by Dr. Robertson in his radio broadcast. (The working out of 
the objectives had been a major part of the endeavor of numerous com- 
mittees over the three years prior to the adoption of the new plan.) 

The students had to pass four tests in order to move to the upper 
division: the Sophomore General Examination, a comprehensive test 
involving all but the first, second, and fifth of the eight objectives, which 
were evaluated in other ways; a language examination certifying the 
student's ability to read a foreign language easily enough to use it as a 
tool; an essay examination measuring the student's ability to think 
effectively and to write clear and correct English; and a library project 
demonstrating her ability to use the library, organize materials, and 
carry out a specific piece of independent research. 

In addition to completing these tests, each candidate for promotion 



to the upper division had to satisfy the Records Committee that she had. Restructuring 

through her classroom and extracurricular activities, demonstrated the College 

qualities of character appropriate to meeting a variety of life situations. 
(This judgment was necessarily based on subjective appraisals supplied 
by guidance officers, instructors, and administrators.) 

The program as a whole, at least in theory, guaranteed that all stu- 
dents had progressed toward fulfillment of the eight objectives without 
any need for specific required courses, thereby meeting the first of the 
three general criticisms of higher education cited earlier. It also ad- 
dressed the second criticism by encouraging all students, especially in 
the upper division, to engage in independent work; and it dealt with the 
third criticism by eliminating course credits except for purposes of stu- 
dents transferring to other institutions. 

The Faculty incorporated the 1934 curriculum into a new time 
scheme that reduced the number of courses students took in a given year 
from ten to nine. The division of the year into three terms instead of 
two semesters allowed students to take three courses per term. Courses 
meeting ordinarily four times a week permitted greater concentration of 
effort and provided significant blocks of time for independent projects 
by eliminating classes on Saturday and one weekday, usually Wednes- 
day. 

The change to a three-term calendar brought about a revision in the 
system for awarding honors. Under the new plan, a student could elect 
one of her three courses per term at any point during the final two years 
as independent work in the upper division. If she devoted two or more 
such terms of independent work to a single project, she would be eligi- 
ble, on recommendation of the Honors Committee, for "special hon- 
ors," which replaced the former "departmental honors." 

When the new plan was introduced in the fall of 1934, students could 
choose between it and the old plan. The majority chose the new, and the 
students were generally enthusiastic about it, though there were, of 
course, some dissenting voices: "I find I have more time to plan the 
awful amount of work I have to do. I feel rather like a high school girl, 
having classes on the same subject on consecutive days. And how I detest 
those eight-thirties!" And on the same theme: "I don't like the long 
weekends and I hate the eight-thirties and I feel like an overworked 
grammar school girl." Another student wrote: "I haven't enough to do 
and I waste all my time looking for books that aren't there. I'm bored 
and expect to be more bored. We have too few subjects." But at least one 
student found the silver lining: "I really can see no difference in the 
work, but 1 do like the way the subjects come together. It is less easy to 
let things slide, "^o 

A few dissenters notwithstanding, students in general showed inter- 
est in their work. On one Wednesday in the first term of 1934, approxi- 
mately 550 of a total of 630 students used the library — a strong indica- 
tor. Calling attention to the improved morale the new plan had 
generated among students and faculty. Dean Stimson predicted an un- Mernbers of the class of 
usuallyhigh rate of return of students the following fall. She was right. In ,g,i picking daisies for the 
1935 about 86 percent returned, as against 80 to 84 percent in earlier daisy chain 
years.-' 

While faculty morale was high, at least at the outset, the initial exhila- 
ration soon gave way to a sense of pressure as certain implications of the 17 




restructuring made themselves felt. The senior comprehensive examina- 
tions generated few problems since each department made its own test 
directed to majors with largely identical preparation. But the Soph- 
omore General Examination was an entirely different kind of 
undertaking — an examination administered to the entire sophomore 
class, whose preparation (in the absence of specific required courses) 
was far from uniform. The large committee responsible for formulating 
the questions for this battery of tests was obliged to find ways of assess- 
ing general progress toward the fulfillment of objectives, using questions 
in the new form, that is, questions that did not (like multiple choice or 
true/false questions) supply or imply the correct answer, but rather ones 
that forced students to furnish their own evidence in support of answers 
expressed in their own words. Once a large group of faculty members 
had completed this task after countless hours of work, and the soph- 
omores had taken the examination for the first time in 1935, the faculty 
used elaborate statistical procedures to assess the results, determine the 
validity of individual questions, and set the passing scores of the various 
parts and the test as a whole. Then the faculty created a similar test for 
the following year.-^ 

If the faculty members experienced heavy constraints on their time 
while they designed and then implemented the new curriculum, they 
could not place all the blame on external causes. It is true that President 
Robertson, in his desire to make the Faculty as fully responsible as 
possible for academic affairs, seemed to create standing committees 
with unbounded enthusiasm, but the Faculty itself emulated its leader, 
often disposing of unfinished business by referring it to an ad hoc com- 
mittee. What is more, only a group of highly meticulous scholars would 
have devoted so much time to preparing policy statements. 

Forexample, when the Faculty met on January 15, 1934, to consider 
some general principles proposed in a draft report on the upper division 
curriculum, that learned body proceeded, characteristically, to spend 




Vingolf Hall parlor, mid- 193 



much time on style. When it finally reached an impasse on matters of 
language, the Faculty referred the draft report to an ad hoc Committee 
on Style, after which it finally addressed itself, as the president had 
originally requested, to a consideration of general principles. The sequel 
to this episode occurred on April 9 when, according to the minutes, 
"President Robertson presented the report of the committee appointed 
to recast the report of the Committee on Curriculum on the curriculum 
of the Upper Division." Needless to say, the redrafted report was then 
reconsidered section by section, and probably comma by comma. ^^ 
In light of the faculty's feeling of pressure and a discussion of this 
problem by the Goucher chapter of the American Association of Univer- 
sity Professors, the Faculty asked the president, in its meeting on Decem- 
ber 14, 1935, to study the expenditure of faculty time in committee 
work in order to see whether the use of fewer and smaller committees 
and better distribution of faculty among them could not achieve the 
same ends as the present system. President Robertson apparently found 
this possible, since the number and size of committees gradually de- 
creased over the next few years, after which, in the manner of economic 
cycles, they began to grow again. 



Restructuring 
the College 



While the faculty devoted an extraordinary amount of time to creating 
the 1934 curriculum and then coping with its implications (which in- 
volved restructuring courses and designing new ones in addition to 
myriad other endeavors), it was also quite active in effecting other aca- 
demic innovations. 

In the fall of 193 1, the American Council on Education, of which 
President Robertson had been an assistant director before coming to 
Goucher, administered its psychological test to 41,000 students at 15Z 
colleges. While this was not an event initiated by Goucher, the test 
exerted some influence on Goucher's first Sophomore General Exam- 
ination, given in 193 5, and also gave the students' morale an immediate 
boost: the mean score on the ACE test for all colleges was 147.37; 
Goucher students' mean score of 199.00 was surpassed only by Haver- 
ford, Wells, Chicago, and Dartmouth, placing the College fifth among 
the 152 participating institutions. '"• 

Despite this indication of its students' psychological fitness, the Fac- 
ulty found itself having to deal with problems of students under- 
prepared in English.-^ On February 26, 1936, President Robertson in- 
formed the Executive Committee that the College was doing interesting 
work in remedial reading, Goucher and Smith being pioneers among 
women's colleges in this effort. The same problem arose in mathematics; 
in the second term of 1935—36, the Mathematics Department offered 
remedial work as a result of a math test given to entering students that 
produced a wide range of scores but with the distribution curve "skewed 
toward the lower performance."-'' 

In 193 1 Religion, Fine Arts, and Physical Education became full 
departments — the religion major making its debut in 1934. At its first 
meeting, on December 14, 193 1, the Faculty created the major in fine 
arts and approved the first combination major, one that allowed a stu- 
dent to combine any two foreign languages. In that same year the Politi- 
cal Science Department offered, in addition to its standard major, a new 



Curricular 
Developments 
Independent of the 
Neti> Plan 




Cjuucher Hall art classroom 



one with emphasis on international relations. According to Professor 
Clinton I. Winslow, this was the first undergraduate major in interna- 
tional relations in the United States, though the claim may not be en- 
tirely accurate.-^ 

Another new endeavor undertaken in the Robertson era was 
Goucher's first experimentation with adult education, which began in 
1932—33, when the Departments of Economics, History, and English 
offered Friday evening classes for "women in industry." At the same 
time, the College opened regular classes to part-time students "of se- 
rious purpose.'"^ Later, in 1941—41, as part of the war effort, the 
Department of Economics and Sociology offered evening courses in 
statistics for social workers, and the Department of Physiology and 
Hygiene gave an evening course in bacteriology for Health Department 
workers and other qualified students. 

Meanwhile, the Modern Languages Department, which seemed to 
flounder a bit in the early thirties as it dropped and added languages and 
changed its name,-"^ nonetheless reached out to touch disciplines be- 
longing to what would later be known as Faculties II and IH. As early as 
1920 the Spanish section took a tentative but prophetic step away from 
the ivory tower when it offered a course called "Advanced Spanish 
Composition and Commercial Spanish," and in 1934 the French course 
in phonetics included in its catalog description the statement that it used 
"the phonograph for ear training and exercises of imitation" — in effect, 
Goucher's first language laboratory and probably one of the earliest 
uses of technical equipment in language teaching. But the most salient 
example of interdisciplinary support involved the Departments of Mu- 
sic and Physics. When Music offered its first credit-bearing courses — a 
half-course in music appreciation and a half-course in music history — 
in 193 5, it found itself supported by a physics course called "Sound, the 



Physical Basis of Music," whose catalog description mentioned "mech- 
anism of musical instruments and quality of their sound; properties of 
sound waves; development of musical scales; the ear's sensitivity to 
pitch; acoustics of auditoriums." Music added a course in elementary 
harmony in 1936 and became a major with a full program of courses in 

1937-^° 

The faculty at this time was experienced, in some areas distinguished, 
and stable; there was little turnover. The financial stringency of the 
period may even have driven some faculty members to greater heights 
than might otherwise have been achieved. In some instances faculty 
suffered real economic deprivation; dry promotions (promotions with- 
out a salary increase) were all too common.^' One distinguished mem- 
ber of the faculty received no salary increase from 1929 to 1946. The 
contribution of this group to the College during these trying years is 
deserving of high commendation. 



Restructuring 
the College 



While the faculty clearly dominated the years 1930—37 with its fruitful 
expenditure of energy, the trustees, administrators, and students were 
by no means inactive. On the trustee level, to be sure, the activity was 
largely restricted to financial retrenchment as the effects of the depres- 
sion made themselves ever more apparent. The enrollment pattern for 
this period, when compared with income, expenditures, and the result- 
ing surpluses or deficits year by year, suggests the problems confronting 
the College. Perhaps the most important step the trustees took in the 
early thirties was their appropriation of three hundred dollars for in- 
stalling the first budget system in the College's history.^- Without this 
essential resource, it is doubtful that President Robertson could have 
kept Goucher afloat for very long. 

The enrollment decline, which (as Dr. Robertson later pointed out to 
the Executive Committee) had actually begun before the depression, 
was very apparent to the faculty.^' On December iz, 193 z, the Faculty 
Club, an informal social group with no official status, submitted to the 
Faculty a report suggesting ways individual faculty members might at- 



Activities of the 
Board of Trustees 




May Day, 1933 




Dancers on Alumnae Day, 1931 



tract new students to the College. The first consideration was, of course, 
not to discourage potential candidates. "Do not," the Faculty Club 
urged, "overwork students to such an extent that they will advise others 
not to come." In another suggestion, eminently practical but with 
slightly vulturine overtones, the club encouraged its members to "be on 
the watch for colleges which have to close their doors for lack of 
funds."^" 

As the second of these suggestions indicates, the faculty knew well 
that Goucher was not alone in its plight. According to President Robert- 
son, fewer than forty colleges and universities had balanced their 1932- 
33 budgets without either reducing salaries or incurring a deficit. ^^ 

The Alumnae Fund had made its first annual gift to the College in 
193 1, but, welcome as this was, draconian measures were clearly 
needed. They were taken at an historic faculty meeting on April 10, 
1933, during which President Robertson presented a summary of the 
financial status of the College, illustrated by figures on the blackboard. 
He refrained, however, from making any suggestion. After a brief dis- 
cussion, the faculty voted unanimously to contribute to the College 10 
percent of the amount budgeted for faculty salaries for 1933-34. The 
result of this generous action — which the faculty renewed annually for a 
total of four consecutive years and which was augmented by a corre- 
sponding decrease in administrative salaries — was an annual saving of 
approximately $20,000.^'' The Board of Trustees, meeting on October 
I, 1934, received a report from the treasurer showing a surplus of 



$7>439-94 in the 1933-34 budget, but without the faculty and admin- 
istrative salary cut, there would have been a deficit of over $ 1 2,000. The 
president acknowledged this fact and went on to say that "the College 
[had] touched rock bottom" and had nowhere to go but up. Alas, he was 
wrong. Enrollment, which determines income from tuition and fees, a 
very large proportion of the operating budget of the institution, did not 
climb back to the 1927— z8 figure of 1,060 until very much later and, 
indeed, did not surpass the 1930 figure of 894 until 1962. The size of the 
student body dropped to the nadir in 1942, when the first term enroll- 
ment was 492 as compared with 576 the year before. ^^ 

At the Executive Committee meeting of September 27, 1934, the 
trustees decided to celebrate, in 1938, the fiftieth anniversary of the 
College. To those who participated in the centennial celebration in 
1985, the choice of 1938 may seem odd, but there are several possible 
dates which one could assign to the beginning of Goucher College. 
While the actual founding took place in 1885, the College first opened 
its doors to students and began its academic program in 1888, thereby 
justifying the 1938 commemoration. There may have been another 
reason for choosing 1938 as the anniversary date: the trustees probably 
did not feel in the appropriate mood to celebrate anything in 1935. 

President Robertson presented to the Executive Committee in May, 
1936, a report on his program for development of the Towson campus. 
He concluded his report with the following words: 

In summary, it is desirable to undertake, beginning in the year 1935-36, 
raising funds to provide for the following: 

Architect's plan for buildings and grounds 

Residence halls at Towson 

Library five year plan 

Laboratories 

Improvement in instruction 

Deficit 

It is desirable to complete as much of this program as possible in time to 
permit cornerstone layings or dedications of buildings on the Towson cam- 
pus in November 1938, as part of the celebration of the 50th Anniversary of 
the Opening of the College.^** 

The optimism implicit in this program for a new campus must have 
been dampened when the trustees received, on June 2, 1936, the melan- 
choly news that the budget for 1936—37, based on an enrollment of 660 
students, included a planned deficit of $10,368. Even this was con- 
tingent on the faculty's continuing its contribution of 10 percent of 
salary, without which the deficit would increase by an additional 
$20,000. By the following June, however, the financial outlook bright- 
ened considerably, and Dr. Robertson found it possible to report to the 
board that the 1936—37 budget would realize a surplus of approxi- 
mately $3,000. For the first time in four years, the balanced budget for 
1937-38 omitted the faculty contribution of 10 percent of salary and 
included an item of $6,000, to be continued for the next four years, 
providing for the amortization of the $30,000 accumulated deficit.'"^ 



The Robertson At the opening convocation in 1937, Dr. Robertson announced the 

Administration appointment of a "Faculty Committee on Promotion whose duty is the 

formulation of the educational program to be expressed in architec- 
ture.'""^ He also said that an advisory board of three distinguished 
architects had been chosen to work with the faculty committee on the 
site plan for the Towson campus."*' The trustees hired Tambiyn and 
Brown as consultants to plan the campaign that they hoped would raise 
the funds to move the campus from downtown to the county, using the 
coming semicentennial as a spur to encourage giving. '♦^ 

The year 1937 also marked the close of an era in the physical educa- 
tion of Goucher students. When Bennett Hall first opened in 1889, it 
was generally considered to be the finest gymnasium for women in the 
world. '•^ The physical education staff had all been imported from Swe- 
den, and with them came thirty-seven costly Zander machines. These 
machines, which bore a marked resemblance to the electric chair, were 
designed to develop appropriate muscles with "modern" scientific pre- 
cision. In 1937 the Zander machines were almost fifty years old, and 
Miss Eline von Borries, then director of physical education, decided that 
there were less cumbersome and more efficient ways to accomplish the 
purpose they had been designed to serve. Accordingly, on October 5, 
1937, the Executive Committee of the Board voted to authorize the sale 
of the Zander machines for scrap iron, no one apparently having 
thought of offering one to the Smithsonian Institution.'''* 



The Student Scene While the faculty labored over the ramifications of the new curriculum 

and the trustees pondered the move to Towson, the students lived their 
own lives, touched only indirectly by these weighty matters. 

The year 1930 brought significant changes in student life as well as in 
that of the faculty. The College abolished the freshman skullcap and 
hazing, and the junior class was made responsible for freshman orienta- 
tion.''^ The Goucher College Weekly opened 1930 with a solid endorse- 
ment of the first woman to occupy the president's office at the College. 
After Professor Hans Froelicher's death in January, 1930, the Board of 
Trustees appointed Dean Dorothy Stimson as acting president, and on 
February 13, Weekly made its own position clear in an editorial. "The 
press," it said, "has had much to say about the novelty of a woman 
president. We have no doubts. "'♦^ 

The tone of Weekly in the early thirties was relatively uniform. The 
writers were, for the most part, highly literate, though often far more 
subjective and even overtly emotional than sound journalistic practice 
normally permits. The reporting was, from a student viewpoint, quite 
extensive, including not only campus news but also a summary of world 
news in each issue. For a time. Weekly presented a retrospective column 
of quotations from one of its editions published ten years earlier. Each 
issue contained book, theatre, and music reviews, as well as full reports 
on Goucher events. Fully half the articles in most issues had to do with 
talks: chapel talks especially, but also guest lectures, club talks by fac- 
ulty and others, presidential talks, readings by Professor Winslow and 
Dean Stimson, all reviewed with copious use of emotional adjectives — 
"charming," "heartwarming, "thrilling," and the like. 

2.4 Every week under the heading "The Lighted House," the paper pub- 



^r '*-^i«*s 



S5&; ^. 






Ride Day, 1930s 



lished President and Mrs. Robertson's full calendar of activities. The 
Robertsons' social life was, to say the least, intense. When not traveling, 
Mrs. Robertson hosted a series of celebrities whom she brought to the 
College in a steady parade. The guest list at the President's House 
constituted a veritable "Who's Who" of the thirties, and students and 
faculty were regularly invited to meet these distinguished visitors. A 
college servant stood at the door during Mrs. Robertson's receptions 
and clicked a counter as each guest entered. No regular college activities 
could be scheduled during her "at homes" because the faculty was 
required to "flutter" among the guests.''^ 

Weekly's editorials at this time were generally conservative. While 
they favored discarding traditions that had lost their raison d'etre and 
become perfunctory, they encouraged the retention and upgrading of 
sound traditions, particularly Chapel. Some students urged the institu- 
tion of new "traditions," like the rather daring and innovative one of 
flying home for vacation. In the March 19, 1931, issue of Weekly, an 
enterprising undergraduate informed her peers that "Goucher students 
are beginning to solve the speed problem," the solution being "airplane 
travel." According to this young entrepreneuse, the speeds and rates 
shown in table i were available on the Ludlington Airplane Line. 

"The trips," the student writer assured her readers, "are made in 
planes containing 'all modern improvements' — comfortable leather- 
lined chairs and a system of cabinet heating en route. "''^ When Amelia 
Earhart visited the Robertsons several years later and spoke at the Lyric 
Theatre on "Adventures in Flying," she probably did not realize that she 
was, in some instances, addressing young experts in the field. 

In 1 93 z the students, supported by Weekly's editorial page, sought to 
bring about another innovation: the students requested permission to 
have radios in their rooms.'*'* The College, with its usual circumspec- 




idge over Donnybrook, 1934 



tion, replied that it would first have to study the question of electrical 
overload on the power house. 

One innovation did materialize, however: in 1 9 3 2 the Glee Club sang 
a concert for the first time with men. And in 1934 an admirable tradi- 
tion was maintained: the Goucher debate team enjoyed its fifth consecu- 
tive win over the Princeton team.^o 

The student newspaper did not overlook the fact that 1932 was a 
presidential election year. On April 23 Weekly reported that at a "non- 
partisan model national convention" at Goucher, the adopted platform 
was conservative, stressing "government for, rather than by, the peo- 
ple." Hoover won the presidential nomination over Roosevelt by 65 



Table 1 Speeds and Rates on 
Ludiington Airplane Line, 1931 



Baltimore to 


Hours Minutes One-Way 


Round-Trip 


Washington 

Philadelphia 

New York City 

Boston 

Pittsburgh 

Chicago 


25 $ 4.00 
50 8.00 

1 25 13.25 
4 00 29.10 

2 05 19.20 
6 15 48.75 


$20.00 
51.70 



Source: Goucher College Weekly, May 19, 1931. 



votes (150—85), Norman Thomas placing third with 24 votes. When a 
mock election, in which three quarters of the student body voted, was 
held in November, the student vote was similar. Hoover receiving Z59 of 
a total of 470 student votes (55.1 percent, down from 57.9 percent in 
April). Roosevelt garnered 143 votes (30.4 percent, down from 32.8 
percent at the model convention), and Thomas won 68 votes (14.5 
percent, up from 9.3 percent seven weeks earlier).^' 

This time, however, the faculty voted separately, with rather surpris- 
ing results. Of 53 faculty votes. Hoover won 26, Thomas 22, and Roos- 
evelt a paltry 5.^- The fact that Hoover picked up one less than a 
majority was fairly predictable since the faculty had voted Republican in 
the 1922 and 1928 mockelections. That Thomas took 42 percent of the 
vote to Roosevelt's 9 percent is striking. This probably reflected the 
influence of a group of ardent faculty supporters of the Socialist party. 
History Professor Naomi Riches, a strong partisan who later ran for 
office on the Socialist ticket, may have converted a fair number of her 
colleagues, but the fact that Emma Thomas, Norman Thomas's sister, 
was an alumna living in Baltimore and well known to members of the 
faculty, together with the strong influence of Professor of philosophy 
Gertrude Bussey, an outspoken Socialist, probably had an even greater 
effect. 

In 1933 several changes were made in student living arrangements. 
For the first time, the College permitted local students to live in the 
residence halls; the declining enrollment had clearly resulted in unused 
space in the dormitories. The College also put faculty members in 
charge of some of the residence halls, and Foster House became 
Goucher's first cooperative house, that is, a house in which student 
residents are responsible for all housekeeping, including the purchasing 
and cooking of food. The Infirmary Auxiliary was organized in 1933, 
and, of even greater concern to the students, the College opened a 
recreation hall to which men were periodically admitted. 

The increasing appearance of men on the Goucher scene was proba- 
bly the most notable change in student life in the early thirties. The first 
Glee Club concert with men has already been mentioned; in 1933 
Goucher also permitted men, for the first time, to play the male roles in 
College plays. '^ Prior to 1908 men had not been allowed even in the 
audiences of College dramatic productions; then only the fathers of 
seniors could attend. 

At least one aspect of student life did not change in the thirties and 
has not changed since: on January 16, 1933, the Faculty received a 
report about student complaints concerning food in the residence halls. 
Specifically, the students objected to (i) the selection of foods; (2) the 
cooking of foods; and ( 3 ) the serving of foods — which seems to have left 
little room for approbation. The Faculty, on the other hand, was less 
concerned about food than about drink. In 1933 the College Council 
raised the question of "problems incidental to repeal of the Eighteenth 
Amendment." Some students had requested rules about what could and 
could not be done. President Robertson, who preferred general princi- 
ples to rules, persuaded the Faculty to take no action while awaiting a 
possible initiative by the Students' Organization. '•^ 

A rather surprising initiative emerged from another student group, as 
a bemused Faculty discovered on December 14, 1935, when it learned 



that the Pan-Hellenic Council, representing the Goucher "fraternities," 
had turned over to the library a collection of examination papers drawn 
from the sororities' accumulated files.'"'' The Faculty surmised that the 
Council had taken this step partly as a result of faculty comment on the 
special privileges afforded sorority members through their possession of 
past examination papers. The Faculty thought it unwise to respond 
directly to this gesture, but it voted to authorize and request the library 
to make these papers available to all students and to empower the 
librarian to write a letter to the Pan-Hellenic Council acknowledging 
"this gracious gift" and offering to receive any further similar contribu- 
tions the organization might be moved to make in the future. 

Whether it was a question of the increased presence of men on the 
Goucher scene, the consequences of the repeal of Prohibition, or the 
unfair advantage of "fraternity" members because of their examination 
files, the niceties of student behavior were a major source of comment 
and debate in the pages of Weekly throughout the thirties. The Tone 
Committee, which was responsible for protecting the students' image 
from any possible blemish, was taken very seriously by students in 
general and by Weekly in particular. When, for example, the question 
was raised (and vehemently debated) whether the College should estab- 
lish a date bureau, Weekly took the view that such an institution would 
be decidedly contrary to "tone."^^ 

Conservative though the student body was at this time, it did join the 
Democratic bandwagon in the presidential election of 1936. When 536 
of a possible 677 students voted in Goucher's mock election, Roosevelt 
won with z 8 1 votes ; Landon received 261, Thomas 5 5 , and Browder 5 , 
with one vote going to Lemke.^'' 

The size of the turnout for the mock election was symptomatic of the 
seriousness of the student body in the thirties about issues, major and 
minor. '** Weekly was very earnest about "tone," about the quality of the 
College and the students' own academic achievements, about the much 
talked about "talks" by the faculty and others, about faculty travels and 
the state of the world (the Sino-Japanese War, the Spanish Civil War, the 
German threat, peace strikes) and, of course, about the quality and 
"national reputation" of Weekly itself.^' 

The paper's own tone was predominantly solemn and uplifting, 
though there was also evidence of more characteristically undergradu- 
ate preoccupations concerning such matters as who went where on the 
preceding weekend (since Saturday classes no longer existed), what the 
most popular dances were ("swing" was a major topic of discussion), 
how "Cupid" had struck certain recent graduates, and what was taking 
place on other college campuses. A faint trace of leftover Victorian 
sentimentality — as controlled as possible — occasionally revealed itself 
under the usually intellectual patina that clothed lengthy discussions of 
the problem of "gaiety" on the one hand and "tone" on the other. But 
soon the students would have an even more pressing preoccupation to 
debate: the forthcoming move to "Greater Goucher" in Towson. 



THREE 



The Beginning of 

Greater Gaucher 

( I 9 3 8 - I 9 4 1 ) 



T 



he Goucher odyssey, when the 
College moved from downtown Baltimore to "Greater Goucher" — the 
future Towson campus — began, symbolically, with the 1937 appoint- 
ment of an Advisory Board of Architects to assist the Faculty in working 
out a plan for the new site. Before this the new campus had been con- 
stantly envisaged in terms of gothic spires; an early drawing of an archi- 
tect's conception of the campus showed rank upon rank of imposing 
gothic structures, and Dr. J. M. Beatty, Jr., in "The Builders of Greater 
Goucher," described: 



The joy of seeing visions realized. 
The thrill of glimpsing through the 
White spires of august learning.' 



mellowed oaks 



Later, in his final tribute to President Guth, "In Memoriam," Dr. Beatty 
concluded the poem with the lines: 

His task at noontide was but just begun — 
We cannot fail him now: his spires shall rise.' 

This conception of a gothic campus in Towson persisted at least from 
1 92 1 to the end of the Guth era, but Dean Dorothy Stimson cast new 
light on the matter in an oral interview conducted by Professor Clinton 
I. Winslow on March 18, 1971.^ Speaking of her first meeting with 
President Guth in September 19Z1 Dean Stimson said: 

At that time on his desk was a small piece of tracing paper, outlined on it 
the 4Z I acres of the Towson campus which had been purchased the preceding 
spring. We spoke about the campus a little, and he commented that he hoped 
to have as architect Bertram Grosvenor Goodhue, who was a notable archi- 
tect doing, I think, the Lincoln Memorial in Washington; I'm not quite sure. 
He expected to have him do it in the most modern style of building because he 



The Fiftieth 
Anniversary 
Campaign and 
Building Plans 




"The Spirit of Goucher," 1926 



did not want pedagogical gothic on the campus. Actually, the talk about 
spires' effect on the campus to be heard about a good deal later on was pure 
facade from President Guth's point of view, as he had his mind made up. 

Dean Stimson's assurance notwithstanding, Dr. Guth may, in fact, 
have changed his mind. He did employ Bertram Goodhue to design a 
campus, but Mr. Goodhue died in 1924. President Guth next turned to 
Woldemar H. Ritter, a Boston architect, who drew the 19x6 sketch 
showing the Gothic buildings alluded to earlier. This drawing by an 
architect famous for his neo-gothic buildings was printed in the Bal- 
timore Evening Sun on June 8, 1926. The accompanying article makes it 
clear that while the sketch was "a mere suggestion," it was Mr. Ritter's 
intention to follow its main lines in the actual plans for the campus. 

Though President Robertson had spoken frequently about the future 
move to Towson, he was faced with the financial realities of the depres- 
sion, including its effects on fund-raising. However, he received strong 
alumnae support for the move. In the words of Knipp and Thomas: 

The alumnae, with a few individual exceptions, have always been enthusi- 
astic about the removal of the College to the Towson site. The Alumnae 
Council meeting of 1 9 3 5 came to an end with the annual dinner of President 
and Mrs. Robertson. . . . After the dinner. President Robertson asked the 
alumnae some questions about building the College on the Towson campus, 
among them: "What would the Alumnae Council advise the Trustees to do in 
regard to a promotional program?" The answer came in the form of a 
motion, enthusiastically adopted by the group: "The members of the Alum- 
nae Council of 1935 ask the Trustees as a part of the Fiftieth Anniversary to 



formulate definite practical plans for the removal of the College to the cam- Beginning of 

pus and to develop them as far as possible by 1938."'' "Greater Gaucher" 

The Alumnae Council's motion was not really responsive, in a literal 
sense, to Dr. Robertson's question. He had asked for the Council's 
recommendation concerning a fund-raising campaign. They replied by 
asking the trustees to make "practical plans," but they said nothing 
specific about financial support of those plans, unless one interprets the 
word "practical" to imply such support. In truth, the alumnae, who had 
already made heroic efforts in the twenties on behalf of the "4-2.-1" 
campaign, continued to contribute significantly to the Goucher build- 
ing fund by raising about 60 percent of the money needed to construct 
the academic building later named Van Meter Hall. 

Before it complied with the Alumnae Council's motion by taking the 
first practical steps toward building a new campus, the Board of Trustees 
underwent major internal changes. Mr. Elmore B. Jeffery, a president of 
the board for whom Jeffery House is named, died in 1929 and was 
succeeded by Mr. Edward L. Robinson. Though Mr. Robinson — for 
whose first wife the College also named a residential house — declined 
the presidency because of his age, he filled the role of acting president 
until 1936 when two remarkable men were elected to office: Mr. (later 
Judge) Emory H. Niles as president and Mr. John W. Sherwood as vice 
president.^ 

It seems odd that, to date, nothing on the Towson campus has been 
named for Judge Niles, who, with President Robertson and Professor 
Winslow, played a crucial role in launching its construction. Indeed, 
Judge Niles and Professor Winslow are two of the least celebrated "he- 
roes" of Goucher history. Eleanor Diggs Corner, an outstanding presi- 
dent of the Alumnae Association, said: "I give [Judge Niles] all credit" 
for the decision to move to Towson,'' and Dean Stimson spoke elo- 
quently on the role of Winslow: 

This College, to my mind, is a result of the life work of Clinton Winslow. 
And I sometimes wonder if it has been fully appreciated. ... To my mind, he 
has done an amazing job. . . . But I also know that one or two of the presi- 
dents had not understood fully what he had done and had questioned why he 
hadn't produced academically; and I was very glad to be able to step firmly 
on that idea. I can say that I knew by personal experience what he had done 
and what he had given up m order to do it. And I would wish very much that 
it is perfectly clear on the record somewhere that this College in a way is a 
monument to Mr. Winslow. He brought it to life.^ 

On December 23, 1 93 6, a month after taking office, Emory Niles and 
John Sherwood joined President Robertson in seeking counsel from a 
committee of the American Institute of Architects on how to proceed 
with planning the new campus. The committee suggested that the Col- 
lege create an Advisory Board of Architects and, as we have seen, Presi- 
dent Robertson announced the appointment of this board — together 
with that of the Faculty Committee on Planning chaired by Professor 
Winslow — at the opening convocation of 1937. 

The Faculty Planning Committee and the Advisory Board of Archi- 
tects decided to select an architect by national competition. Each en- 
trant would submit a general plan for the campus and the design of one 
principal building. Announced in the spring of 1938, the competition 31 




Fiftieth Anniversary Banquet, Lord Baltimoi 



drew more than 150 applicants, 50 of whom were invited to submit 
designs.** In October 1938 the advisory board recommended to the 
Board of Trustees that it award first prize in the competition to Messrs. 
Moore and Hutchins of New York City.^ The timing of the decision was 
perfect. 

The trustees had planned in 1934 to observe "in a simple way" the 
1884 decision of the Baltimore Conference of the Methodist Episcopal 
Church to found "a Female College," to mark quietly in 1935 the legal 
incorporation of the College, and in 1936 the laying of the cornerstone 
of Goucher Hall, but they reserved the formal celebration until 1938, 
"when the half century of work with the students could be commemo- 
rated. "'o The College designated October 14—16, 1938, for the fiftieth 
anniversary festivities, with the ceremony at the Lyric on October 1 4 the 
principal event. Though in its previous history it had conferred only ten 
honorary degrees, Goucher awarded honorary degrees to eight women 
at this gathering, and the president announced the winners of the archi- 
tectural competition." Messrs. Moore and Hutchins were awarded 
$2,500; the second prize of $2,000 was won by Eliel and Eero Saarinan; 
the third prize of $1,500 went to Frost and Frost; and Thompson, 
Holmes, and Converse garnered the $1,000 fourth prize. 

In February 1939 Mr. (later Judge) Roszel C. Thomsen, chairman of 



the Building Fund Committee, said that the first step in the move to 
Towson was "the building of residence halls and the necessary provision 
for their service. According to the present plan," he explained, "the 
residence halls are to consist of four houses, each accommodating about 
forty students, with a central unit containing reception hall, dining 
room, kitchen, and provision for faculty persons in residence. The cost 
will be about $3,000 per student, approximately $120,000 for each 
House, or $480,000 for a Hall. Each of the Houses as well as the Hall," 
he discreetly suggested, "may be named for a donor." '- 

The goal of the campaign was to raise $ 1,775,000, first by approach- 
ing prospective major donors as early as possible in 1939, then turning 
to the alumnae in the fall and winter, and concluding with Baltimore, 
where the trustees hoped to obtain over half their goal, in the winter and 
spring of 1940. In the optimistic words of the chairman of the commit- 
tee, "If by Commencement 1939 half a million can be secured, it is 
hoped by May 1940 to secure the full sum."'^ The hope was not 
fulfilled. 

In June Mr. Thomsen told the Executive Committee that "the work 
had proceeded slowly and with results much less satisfactory than had 
been hoped for. All but two of the trustees had made gifts," he said, "but 
the aggregate is only about $50,000." According to the minutes: 

Despite the discouragement in not obtaining large gifts from the trustees 
and a small outside group, the members of the [Building Fund] Committee 
were unanimously of the opinion that the plan must continue to be pushed. 
The dormitory situation is so bad that, at all costs, to preserve the standing of 
the College, residence halls must be erected at the earliest possible time on 
the campus.''' 

Even by the following November, long after the 1939 Commence- 
ment, only $113,417 had been contributed to the building fund as a 
result of the campaign, a far cry from the anticipated half-million dol- 
lars.'^ 

The College did receive both moral and financial support from Bal- 
timore alumnae of other women's colleges. In February 1940 Baltimore 
alumnae of Smith, Wellesley, Vassar, Sweet Briar, Wells, Wilson, Mount 
Holyoke, and Radcliffe united to give a Benefit for the Goucher building 
fund. This event, which featured a trio from the Philadelphia Orchestra, 
took place in Catherine Hooper Hall."' 

At the same meeting in which it learned of the Benefit, the Executive 
Committee, with exemplary foresight, "viewed with favor" another 
source of potential revenue — the first-class commercial development of 
the Towson Corner, a site at the intersection of Joppa, Dulaney Valley, 
and York roads which the College owned. The property is now occupied 
by Hutzler's store and parking facility, Hecht's store, and the Towson- 
town Shopping Center and its parking area. 

Meanwhile, planning for "Greater Goucher" continued. Although 
the campaign had raised only $23 3,0 1 9. 1 8 by mid-February 1 940,'^ on 
February 21 the College signed a design contract with Moore and 
Hutchins for the first residence hall in Towson."* Late in May the Board 
of Trustees held an emergency meeting to decide whether to begin con- 
struction in Towson with $317,217.15 pledged by 3,369 subscribers 
and $ 1 27,000 already donated in cash. '^ The Board recognized that the 



Beginning of 
"Greater Goucher" 




Fiftieth Anniversary 
Banquet fashion show. 
Old and new gym suits, 
October 1938 



The Robertson 
Administration 




war in Europe was likely to cause a substantial rise in building costs, 
although there was no certainty that the United States would enter the 
war. Unable to reach a decision, the trustees voted to postpone the 
question for a week. When they met again on June 4, 1940, President 
Robertson spoke fervently in favor of going ahead with construction, 
emphasizing that the trustees had already committed themselves. If the 
work did not go forward, he warned, "the morale of the College [will 
be] all shot to pieces." Heeding his words, the board voted to proceed 
with the building of the first residence hall.-" 

When Moore and Hutchins drew up a plan with several variations, 
the trustees initially favored one costing $650,000 that called for a 
building with five units: a central section and four wings to house about 
160 students.-' Later, when no practical plan for raising that sum had 
been proposed, and the opening enrollment for 1940—41 was 583, 4.1 
percent less than the previous year, the architects proposed retaining the 
central unit and two wings, to accommodate one hundred students at 
the more modest cost of $400,000. Moreover, adding the other wings 
would be possible when enrollments warranted and funds became avail- 
able. Obviously pleased with this compromise, the Executive Commit- 
tee unanimously approved this plan.^-^ 



Although students were certainly interested in the progress of the devel- 
oping Towson campus — at least to the extent that they were aware of 
it — some of them had their sights set on academic surroundings much 
farther removed from Baltimore than Towson. In 1938 the College 
offered them a major curricular opportunity: the chance to study 
abroad on an approved program. On April 8, 1938, Weekly reported 
that students might study in Geneva on a plan developed by the Univer- 




Beginning of 
"Greater Gaucher" 



Group ut stuilcnts playing cards, 1937- 



sity of Delaware. Although this possibility was short-lived because of the 
impending war, it reappeared in 1948 when Sweet Briar College took 
over the Delaware program, which had been moved to Paris. 

In 1939 students were heavily involved in the Equal Rights Council, 
active on campus primarily because of Professor Esther Crane's atten- 
dance at the Lima Pan-American Conference where equal rights for 
women was a prominent issue.--'' Numerous symposia on neutrality 
took place in September and October, and the Weekly of October zy, 
1939, was already discussing the propriety of Roosevelt's candidacy for 
a third term as president of the United States. But there was still time for 
fun. On May 26, 1938, the students held the first May Ball featuring the 
first Big Band to appear at the College.-'' 

Although undergraduate concerns in 1940 focused largely on na- 
tional and international affairs, two major campus issues caught stu- 
dents' attention. In 1940 Kalends, Goucher's fifty- year-old student liter- 
ary magazine, was replaced by a new periodical, the Dilettante; and in a 
forceful editorial in its issue of February 9 Weekly, always interested in 
governance, urged the revival of College Council, which had lain dor- 
mant for a year and a half. The editors further suggested the possibility 
of having "student representatives on at least some committees of the 
faculty" such as the Planning and Library Committees and especially 
the Committee on Student Life.-'' 

In a broader perspective Weekly began the year by highlighting a 
series of war symposia at which various speakers discussed aspects of 
the international situation,^^ and in September 1940 a significant 
source of debate in the student newspaper was the question of national 
conscription. In October — which also saw the appearance of a regular 
humorous article appearing in column 5 of the editorial page under the 
highly appropriate heading "Fifth Column" — the newspaper con- 
ducted one of its most elaborate preelection surveys. Readers were asked 







ts. - 




T All 1! < 


'• '.^r 


j^-^M^ 


^< 


'^^ 


m 


^Jw^ 


"Y-, 




m 




\ 


^f^- 


.It 


i 


A 


,-li ■ 


^■•^^^^ .^ti^^^^^^KK^m^i!^ '^ 



Hockey game, 1942 




Downtown dining room, mid- 1940s 



Table 2 Goucher College Weekly Pre-election Survey, October 1940 



Presidential Preference 
Candidate 



Faculty Vote 



Wiilkie 
Roosevelt 
Thomas 
Browder 

Attitude toward Selective Service Act 



21 
10 

4 



Faculty Vote 



Favor Selective Service Act 
Oppose Selective Service Act 

Preferred Objective of 

U.S. National Defense Policy 


302 
350 

Student Preference 


23 
11 

Faculty Preference 


Defense of U.S. within its own territorial 

limits 
Defense of Western Hemisphere 
Mamtenance of World Order 


116 

170 
63 


8 
17 

8 



Source: Goucher College Weekly, October 25, 1940. 



to vote for a presidential candidate, for or against the Selective Service 
Act, and for one of three directions the government's policy of national 
defense might take. The results of the survey are shown in table z. 



Beginning of 
"Greater Goucher" 



When the College began the second term in January 1941, the enroll- 
ment of 576 showed a decline from 583 at the start of the first semes- 
ter.-^ This decrease suggested retrenchment of faculty positions in areas 
that attracted the fewest students-^ and led to an event in February 1 94 1 
that foreshadowed a similar occurrence in the seventies. The Executive 
Committee terminated the position of Dr. Herbert Shaumann because 
of low enrollments in German, and reduced to part-time the position of 
Dr. Grace Beardsley because of low enrollments in classics. ^^ 

Balancing such efforts to decrease expenditures, at the same meeting 
the Executive Committee took steps to increase income by establishing 
the Goucher College Fund, a committee charged with planning and 
overseeing activities involving fund-raising. The Executive Committee 
also voted to approve the appointment of a financial vice president 
whose responsibility would be "to spend his time on such financial 
activities as authorized by the Goucher College Fund." The first ap- 
pointee to this position, the College's first vice president, was Mr. 
Horatio Whitridge Turner. 

At the next meeting of the Executive Committee, the president re- 
ported on the duties of the new vice president, namely, "fund-raising 
and publicity connected therewith" ; Mr. Turner was to give his immedi- 
ate attention to the "solicitation of gifts and development of a bequest 
program related thereto." And in a major step the committee voted to 
award a contract "for the erection of Residence Hall No. i at a cost of 
$377,000.00" to the Harry Hudgins Co.^"^ Excavation for the first dor- 
mitory on the Towson campus, the future Mary Fisher Hall, began on 
April 8 with the cornerstone laying scheduled for the 1941 Commence- 
ment.^' 

Endowment funds present a serious difficulty. As a rule, they can be 



The Final Months 
before the War 



The Robertson 
Administration 




Student in auto repair course offered as part of National Defense Program, early 1940s 



used only to generate income; while such income is expendable endow- 
ment, the principal is not. The Board of Trustees found a way to circum- 
vent this problem in connection with the building of the new residence 
halls on the Towson campus. They reasoned that, since the investment 
portfolio was generating approximately 2 percent interest, the trustees 
could fulfill their obligation to raise as much income as prudently possi- 
ble by investing some of the College's endowment in dormitories that 
would realize a higher rate of return. Acting on this theory, Mr. Roszel 
C. Thomsen and Mr. Frederick W. Brune, counsels for the Committee 
on Investment in Income-Producing Dormitories, petitioned Circuit 
Court No. 2 of Baltimore City for instruction to the trustees as to their 
duties and for authorization to sell present security holdings for rein- 
vestment in income-producing dormitories. On June 7, 1 94 1 , Judge Eli 
Frank signed a decree empowering the Board of Trustees "to invest the 
endowment funds of the College in the erection of income-producing 
residence halls or dormitories, subject to amortization at not less than 2 
percent per annum, so that the entire amount invested may be returned 
to the endowment fund in cash within the estimated useful life of the 
buildings."'- In a foresighted move on May 15, 1941, the board had 
passed a resolution that, subject to the Court's approval, amounts not 
to exceed $750,000 be invested in the residence hall currently under 
construction." Having already reached this crucial decision, the board 
voted unanimously to accept the Harry A. Hudgins Company's bid of 
$191,498 for the erection of Houses A and B.''' 

On August 29 the College sold Foster House to the Building Con- 
gress of Baltimore for $7,250, thereby beginning a long process of liqui- 
dating the downtown property.^^ A month later the Executive Commit- 



tee gave responsibility for the interior decoration of Residence Hall No. 
I (except for the student bedrooms) to Moore and Hutchins.^^ The next 
step in preparing the new campus for occupancy involved a fascinating 
detail. In December when the College negotiated the appointment of a 
landscape architect for the Towson campus, the choice to fill this posi- 
tion fell upon a gentleman with the most appropriate name imaginable: 
Mr. H. Clay Primrose. ^^ 

As construction went forward, the College community was first ela- 
ted, then saddened, by other events. On September 9, 1941, the Execu- 
tive Committee of the Board received the happy news that Professor Ola 
Winslow's study of Jonathan Edwards had won the Pulitzer Prize for the 
best biography of 1940,''^ but on October 31 Weekly informed the 
College that President and Mrs. Robertson had been hospitalized for 
injuries suffered in an automobile accident, Mrs. Robertson with a 
"mild concussion" and President Robertson with lacerations and 
bruises of the face and one knee. President Robertson's injuries proved 
moderate, but Anne Knobel Robertson died on November 4, 1941. 



Beginning of 
"Greater Gaucher" 



Through the years leading up to the United States' entry into the war, the 
students, like the rest of the Goucher community, had been following 
events on the international scene, debating their significance and par- 
ticipating in them as best they could. In January 1941 the Students' 
Organization authorized a new campus group: The Goucher Commit- 
tee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies. ^^ The following October 
the Goucher Defense Organization came into being, its purpose (in 
addition to lobbying in Washington) to promote such humanitarian 
activities as Bundles for Britain and voluntary service with the USO."*" In 
November Weekly announced the formation of a National Service Pro- 
gram, divided into five parts: (i) education, including such courses as 
first-aid, emergency nursing, recreational leadership, occupational 
therapy, life-saving, and elementary nutrition; (z) production, which 
involved knitting sweaters, socks, and mittens and sewing garments for 
the American Red Cross; (3) fund-raising for contributions for the 
home services and to equip a rehabilitation project and recreation center 
in England for children still in London; (4) conservation of oil and 
electricity and collection of tin foil, clothing and books; and (5) pub- 
licity intended to awaken a college-wide interest in the program.'*! 

On December 7, 1941, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, and on 
December 8 the United States entered the war. Three days later, Judge 
Niles presented to the Executive Committee the following resolutions, 
which were adopted unanimously: 

1. Resolved that the President of the College be authorized and di- 
rected to draft and send a declaration of loyalty and support on 
behalf of the College to the President of the United States, the Gover- 
nor of the State of Maryland, and the Mayor of Baltimore City, and to 
tender to them all the service within our power. 

2. Resolved that the President, Faculty and students be urged to dis- 
cover, consider, and put into effect all means by which Goucher 
College is especially or uniquely qualified to assist in the present 
National Emergency whether by instruction, personal services or the 



Goucher's Response 
to the War 



use of the plant and facilities of the College as an institution under 
private control, unrestricted by Governmental restrictions. '*- 

President Robertson then reported that air wardens had been ap- 
pointed for all buildings now in use and that blackout arrangements had 
been put under the supervision of the chief engineer. To prepare students 
for the possibility of blackouts, Dr. Robertson urged, in a letter to "The 
Parents of Goucher Students" dated December Z9, 1941, "that each 
student return to College, January 5, with a flashlight, a thermos bottle, 
warm clothes, and shoes large enough to permit the wearing of woolen 
socks. The College physician suggests that students, like persons going 
to summer camps, be inoculated against typhoid. A series of inocula- 
tions begun at home can be completed after the return to College."'*^ 

By January 16, 1942, over 250 students were enrolled in such non- 
curricular courses as mechanical drawing and air navigation or were 
otherwise engaged in work sponsored by the National Service Pro- 
gram."''* The United States Navy provided one very special course, 
taught by English Professor Ola Winslow in a room on the top floor of 
Goucher Hall. In 1941—42 and 1942—43 Professor Winslow recruited 
classes of approximately eight students each and instructed them in the 
art of naval cryptography. The students, most of them classics or English 
majors, held "Top Secret Ultra" security clearances, and at the end of 
the course the majority were commissioned in either the navy or the 
marines in ceremonies held in the chapel. In 1942—43 a second section 
of the course was taught by a naval officer. ''^ 

War work occupied the minds of students and faculty alike in 1942, 
and one of the burning questions was whether to conduct a summer 
session related to national defense. In Weekly's January survey faculty 
and students voted 125 to 88 against having a summer session but 
supported, by a vote of 120 to 92, a proposal to eliminate spring vaca- 
tion in order to end the year earlier than originally anticipated, thereby 
making more people available for defense work during the summer.'*'' 
These votes were later confirmed by the trustees, but first the Executive 
Committee considered moving commencement from June 1 5 to June 2 
or 9, with no sacrifice of teaching hours, and offering, during the sum- 
mer of 1942, a number of short courses related to national defense.'*^ 
The Faculty voted, however, not to hold a full summer term in 1942,"*^ 
and Weekly announced the final decision on February 20: by abbreviat- 
ing spring vacation and adding a few Saturday class days, the College 
would shorten third term by one week with no loss of class time."*' 

As summer approached. Weekly increased its coverage of vacation 
opportunites to contribute to the war effort. One long-range possibility, 
a call from the U.S. Army Signal Corps for women electronic engineers, 
aroused interest. Any student with three and a half or four years of 
college education who had successfully completed a specified physics 
course in electricity would be eligible for training. Goucher's Physics 
Department announced that it would offer Physics 109 (Alternating 
Current Electricity) in the third term to meet the Signal Corps specifica- 
tions, and that the following year it would rename the course "Elec- 
tronics and Radio." 

The Political Science Department inaugurated a program in 1942 
that would later become a very significant part of the College's 




Goucher Hall and Bennett Hall, next to the First Methodist Church, 



curriculum — the off-campus internship. Three students, two in poHtical 
science and one in economics, completed internships in the Office of 
Price Administration. 50 Interestingly, in one of his last meetings with the 
Executive Committee of the Board (March 19, 1948), President Robert- 
son took pleasure in reading a letter from a member of the UNESCO 
staff expressing appreciation for the work of a Goucher student serving 
an internship in his department. 5' 

Internships not only provide valuable experience to the student, they 
also contribute, in many instances, a measure of useful service to public 
organizations. We have seen that service was much in the minds of 
students and faculty during the war years, and a notable example ap- 
peared in the first of a series of publications called "Broadsides" that the 
faculty initiated in January 1943. Some thought these pamphlets had 
possible recruitment value, but they did not directly invite recipients to 
come to Goucher; rather, they made general appeals to prepare for the 
needs of the time.^- "Broadside Number One" began with the following 
open letter, written by Eleanor Spencer, professor of fine arts, but, by 
Faculty vote, signed in the name of the faculty as a whole: 

To the Students of Goucher College: 

Since the war is now a part of your life, you need to plan your education in 
relation to it. Moreover, the postwar world will be, to some degree, your 
responsibility, for "we cannot win a true victory unless there exists in this 
country a large body of liberally educated citizens" (Wendell Willkie). 

As educated women, you know that your responsibility and your ability 



The Robertson 
Administration 




Students at an Army-Navy hockey game, 1930s 



to help will increase in proportion to the quality and quantity of your train- 
ing. You know that the Goucher College liberal arts program is both sound 
and flexible. Some of you are preparing now, within the curriculum, for 
specialized service in one of the sciences. The humanities and the social 
studies, which seem less directly connected with winning the war, are as 
essential as the sciences for winning a true victory. You who wish to concen- 
trate in these fields may, by careful selection of a few courses for a definite 
purpose, equip yourselves to help in the present emergency as well as in the 
postwar period. . . . 

Your decisions may involve a change of electives, acceleration, or an 
intensification of your training in summer schools. You have not yet been 
drafted for service. You will be more useful when your college work is 
finished. Plan, therefore, as wisely as you can, for a definite form of service 
after college. Remember that as college students you are guardians of the 
ideals of liberal education. Hold these ideals in trust until the men of your 
generation can return to claim their share of the obligations of educated 
citizens. 

The Faculty of Goucher College 
February, 1943^' 

As the students and faculty began the year 1943, their spirited par- 
ticipation in the war effort showed no sign of abating. Weekly continued 
to remind readers of their patriotic duty to buy war bonds and stamps 
regularly, give books for the servicemen, and donate blood to the Red 
Cross.''' For its part, the Faculty took up again the question of offering a 
summer term that would permit students to accelerate their studies and 
thereby hasten their availability for service. Although it had decided 
against such an undertaking the year before, the Faculty reconsidered 
the question in March 1943 and voted to hold a full term with a fairly 
substantial set of course offerings the following summer. President 



Robertson informed the Faculty on April lo that the Board of Trustees Beginning of 

had approved the proposal; on April i6 Weekly announced the first "Greater Goucher" 

summer session in Goucher history/^ 

As a contribution to the College as well as to the war effort, faculty 
participating in the summer program volunteered to teach the extra 
term without salary. '><' Unfortunately, only fifty-one students enrolled in 
the program, and since the College would have incurred a deficit if the 
faculty participants had been compensated, the Faculty saw no future 
for the experiment and voted unanimously on November 13, 1943, to 
discontinue it. Bearing in mind that the sooner students graduated, the 
sooner they could contribute fully to national defense, the Faculty ap- 
proved a proposal to relax the residence requirement so students could 
accelerate by taking one term of their senior year in a summer school of 
another institution. 

Goucher's participation in the war took many forms. During the 
same year in which it offered its first summer program, the College made 
it possible for four area hospitals to provide a different kind of session 
using Goucher's facilities: a pre-clinical nursing program in Catherine 
Hooper Hall that enrolled approximately one hundred students. ^^ 
Meanwhile, shipbuilding continued at a rapid rate, and the new ships 
were often named for prominent persons or institutions. Mr. John Sher- 
wood, vice president of the Board of Trustees, proposed to the Maritime 
Commission that a ship be named for the College's founder.''^ On 
November 22, 1943, the Executive Committee received the uplifting 
news that the liberty ship John F. Goucher was to be launched the 
following day. History repeated itself two years later when President 
Robertson announced the launching, scheduled for June 2, 1945, of the 
SS Goucher VictoryJ^ 

After the Allied victory in 1945, the College was able to return to 
more normal operations and gradually resume its building program, 
but as a result of the war, several changes took place in the composition 
of the student body. On January 6, 1946, the Baltimore Sun carried an 
article by Florence Murray, '43, which called attention to students who 
had entered Goucher the previous fall after having held war jobs for two 
or three years; and the following June the Faculty approved the admis- 
sion of male veterans as noncandidates for the degree.*" 



FOUR 



The Final Years 

of the Robertson 

Administration 

(1941-1^48) 



B 



Further Preparations * '^y the beginning of 1941-4Z the 

for the Transition students knew that the first residence hall in Towson was scheduled to 

to Towson open the following September, and Weekly reflected a great deal of 

enthusiastic anticipation.' The College foreshadowed things to come 
when it placed an order for three buses in January 1942- and made 
plans for the construction of an infirmary facility on the ground floor of 
House B.^ 

As progress continued in Towson, President Robertson called to the 
trustees' attention the architects' need for names of buildings, houses, 
and other memorials.'' In February a Committee on Memorials recom- 
mended that the new residence hall in Towson be named Mary Fisher 
Hall in honor of Mary Cecelia Fisher Goucher, and that the four houses 
be named for four early women faculty members: Clara L. Bacon, 
Frances Mitchell Froelicher, Stella A. McCarty, and Lilian Welsh. The 
trustees approved unanimously the designation Mary Fisher Hall, but 
they returned the suggestions for house names to the committee for 
further consideration. ' As the end of the academic year approached, the 
trustees decided to hold the commencement ceremonies on the Towson 
campus in front of Mary Fisher Hall and to confer on Madame Chiang 
Kai-Shek, through the Chinese Ambassador, the honorary degree of 
Doctor of Laws.* Though Madame Chiang could not — for obvious 
re?-.ons— be present to receive her degree, she wrote a gracious ac- 
kn wledgement, mailed in India and flown to the United States by 
clipper.^ 

To hold commencement in Towson for the first time was an easy 

decision to make; a much harder choice faced the trustees in the spring 

of 194Z: whether or not to raise tuition and fees. The College certainly 

needed the increased income, but the risk of losing students who could 

44 not afford the rise in cost seriously concerned the Board. Despite the 



possible adverse effects on enrollment, the Executive Committee voted The Final Years 

to raise tuition from $450 to $500 and increase the maintenance fee for 
students in residence from $500 to $515. ** 

When Goucher opened for the fall term of 1942—43, students oc- 
cupied Mary Fisher Hall for the first time. Because of the oil shortage, 
the building used coal for heating."* This was not a major problem, but 
scheduling meals and classes on two sites and transporting students, 
faculty, and staff between the city and Towson caused considerable 
irritation. In an October 9, 1942, editorial headed "Towson Troubles," 
Weekly took the students to task for spreading unfounded rumors and 
for blaming the administration for situations over which it had no 
control, not to mention complaining to one another rather than calling 
difficulties to the attention of the proper authorities who could deal with 
them. "Mary Fisher is new," wrote the editor, "and its location as far as 
classes are concerned involves a number of complicating factors, even 
for normal times. But when gasoline rationing, rubber shortages, and 
lack of necessary workers are added to an already complex situation, the 
result is problems and more problems." The best response. Weekly 
suggested, was less futile moaning and more mutual self-help. '" 

As Weekly pointed out, the difficulties involved in moving between 
Mary Fisher Hall and St. Paul Street were real. On September 21 Presi- 
dent Robertson outlined steps to alleviate the problems. He noted that 
transportation facilities had been restricted by the Office of Defense 
Transportation, but four station wagons would provide free service 
between Mary Fisher and Towson; the establishment of a waiting room 
at the corner of York and Joppa Roads would offer some comfort for the 
commuters. Furthermore, the use of car tickets, procurable from the 
College, reduced the round-trip fare on the trolley to twenty-nine cents. 
Extra cars, he said, would leave Towson at 9:30 every class day to bring 
Mary Fisher Hall residents into the city in time for 10:00 classes. "In 
spite of the difficulties with which we are faced," concluded the presi- 
dent, "we shall all try to make the year a happy one."'i 

The trustees successfully journeyed to Towson on October 17, 1942, 
where they had the pleasure of holding their first meeting in the drawing 
room of Mary Fisher Hall. There they learned that freshman classes in 
history, mathematics, and English were being taught in the building 
from 8:20 to 9:10 a.m.'- The College planned to add more morning 
classes in the second and third terms and was developing religious and 
community programs for the residents. 

The bad news was the enrollment, which at the beginning of the first 
term was 492, down from 576 at the same time in 1941. On the other 
hand, the amount of downtown property owned by the College had 
declined as well. The only residence hall still open in the city was Gimle 
Hall; Sessrymner had become a dining room, Goucher Hall a student 
center. Vanaheim, Gimle Annex, Foster House, Folkvang Hall, 
Trudheim Hall, Dunnock House, and Midgard had all been sold.'^ 
Mardal and Hunner Houses had closed, and Fensal and Vingolf Halls 
had been leased to the U.S. Army, though students continued to use the 
land between them for hockey practice. Still in use. Alumnae Lodge was 
not for sale. 

At that time, the College had expended $719,591 on the Towson 
project, approximately $425,000 of this from endowment funds and 4j 



$2955000 from building campaign funds, i'* Commenting to the Faculty 
on the situation. President Robertson observed that a substantial oper- 
ating deficit in 1941-42, including the cost of the 1938 campaign, had 
further increased the overall debt of the College. Expenditures, he said, 
were being decreased wherever possible, but income from securities and 
student fees was dwindling even faster. The problem of controlling ex- 
penditures was exacerbated because the College was badly overstaffed. 
"To take care of shifts in course enrollment," the president suggested, 
"let us seek to utilize hitherto unexploited qualifications in members of 
our faculty." 1^ 

Weekly, at least, saw better things to come. In articles in the Novem- 
ber 1 3 and 20 issues, the newspaper noted that with the purchase of a 
new thirty-three passenger bus and the scheduling of eight new courses 
in Towson, traveling should become easier. Furthermore, many lower- 
division students would now have all their courses offered on the Tow- 
son campus. So, in an optimistic spirit perhaps not fully shared by the 
trustees. Weekly predicted improved convenience for students.'^ 



Though the war impeded construction in Towson until 1946, the trust- 
ees found at least one good use for the land: planting a crop of alfalfa in 
the fields bordering Dulaney Valley Road.'^ Despite the enforced mor- 
atorium on major construction because of the shortages of personnel 
and materials, one item could be built at this time — a new gateway to 
the College. Situated several hundred yards north of the present one, the 
original entrance was really nothing more than the service road used by 
construction workers to gain the most direct possible access to the 
buildingsiteof Mary Fisher Hall. In 1943 the trustees asked Moore and 
Hutchins to design what they thought of as a "permanent" gateway."* 
After two years of planning for the construction and landscaping of the 
area, Moore and Hutchins reported in November 1 94 5 that the William 
W. Guth memorial gate, a gift of Mrs. Guth and the class of 1929, had 
been completed.''^ 

The absence of new residence halls in Towson and the closing of old 
ones downtown combined with increased enrollments to cause a serious 
housing shortage beginning in 1944. The figure in January 1943 was 
still only 503, but a year and a half later, in September 1944, student 
enrollment passed 600 and continued to rise, reaching 739 in October 
1947. This was heartening news, of course, but September 1944 found 
the College unprepared to house all the new students. As a result, the 
administration was obliged to lodge about twenty students at "the State 
Teachers College on York Road" (now Towson State University).-" The 
same situation occurred in September 1945, when all residence halls 
were filled to capacity and twenty-one students were again quartered in 
Richmond Hall of the State Teachers College. That there were forty 
fewer city students than the year before exacerbated the problem.-' To 
avoid a third year of boarding out students, the administration explored 
the possibility of converting single rooms in Mary Fisher Hall to dou- 
bles, but this proved impractical. Accordingly, the College decided to 
turn Alfheim Hall, then an academic building on the downtown cam- 
pus, back into a dormitory.-- 

Meanwhile, the College encountered several problems involving 



travel routes to and through the Towson campus. First, difficulties arose The Final Years 

in connection with the new entrance road. On September 17, 1945, the 
Executive Committee learned that the drive from Dulaney Valley Road 
to Mary Fisher Hall had "cracked and dropped again." The trustees 
voted to have "the cheapest possible patching job done to make the road 
practical for temporary use." A much more serious problem, also in- 
volving a thoroughfare, arose in late 1945, when the trustees learned of 
a plan to build a highway (the future Baltimore beltway) just north of 
Joppa Road. According to the original plan, this freeway would have cut 
through the middle of the campus. In due course, the College prevailed 
upon the State Roads Commission to move the proposed artery farther 
to the north.--' This solved the beltway problem permanently, but the 
entrance road remained troublesome for some time to come.'"* 

The end of the war allowed the College to raise its sights from such 
minor activities as road-patching to full-scale construction on the cam- 
pus. On January zi, 1946, Moore and Hutchins exhibited to the Execu- 
tive Committee a completed plan for Residence Hall No. 2., the future 
Anna Heubeck Hall. By September the administration was engaged in 
intense planning with Moore and Hutchins, not only for the residence 
hall but also the library and a humanities building.-^ 

On December 2 Judge Niles reported to the Executive Committee, 
for the Committee on New Buildings, a plan to construct permanent 
ground floors with unfinished exteriors for both the humanities build- 
ing and a science building, and to build, in similarly skeletal form, the 
north and west wings of Residence Hall No. 2, all to be ready for 
occupancy in the fall of 1 94 7. Consideration of the library was deferred. 
The full board approved these decisions on December 11, 1946. ^^ 

On February 3, 1947, Moore and Hutchins recommended to the 
Executive Committee the construction of a service road from Provi- 
dence Road to the east end of Residence Hall No. 2. At the same meeting 
the committee heard that the Civilian Production Administration had 
approved the College's plans for Residence Hall No. 2 and the science 
and humanities buildings. Construction crews began at once to ready 
the three new structures,--' all still in unfinished form, for occupancy 
when the College opened in September 1947. Accordingly, the admin- 
istration announced that in the first term of 1947-48, the College 
would house the majority of students and offer the majority of courses 
on the Towson campus.-** 

Though the laying of the three cornerstones took place on schedule at 
the 1947 Commencement,-'' when the College began the first term of 
1947-48, none of the three new buildings was ready for occupancy.^" 
Bad spring weather and severe labor shortages caused the delay and 
forced the College to crowd ninety-seven students into Mary Fisher Hall 
and city dormitories until Residence Hall No. z could open. Mean- 
while, the administration reassigned all classes to downtown sites.'' 
The dedications of the first two completed houses of Residence Hall No. 
z, Bennett House and Robinson House, took place on November 23, 
1947, and the College gave the temporary name Lilian Welsh Labora- 
tory to the basement and first floor of the science building.'- Students 
assigned to Bennett House moved from Mary Fisher Hall on November 
zz, and on November Z9 Robinson House was occupied.'^ By January 
1 5 the Department of Physiology and Hygiene had moved into the new 47 



Lilian Welsh Laboratory, and Moore and Hutchins announced that the 
humanities building would be ready for students later in January.^"* 

The first four classes did, in fact, meet in the new humanities building 
on February 9, 1948,^^ and by mid-April the faculty was offering forty- 
seven courses in sixteen departments in the new science and humanities 
buildings. Eighteen faculty members and twelve administrators were 
also having luncheon regularly in Mary Fisher Hall, indicating that the 
new campus was now a very active place. ^* The alumnae completed the 
naming of existing structures when they voted to designate the human- 
ities building in honor of the College's first dean, John Blackford Van 
Meter, with the further notation that the hall was "the gift of the alum- 
nae of the College."'^ 

Moore and Hutchins, who had submitted blueprints for the library 
in April 1 946, supplied detailed plans for construction two years later,^* 
and although President Robertson placed the first of what eventually 
became three library cornerstones at commencement on June iz, 1948, 
his successor. President Otto F. Kraushaar, for reasons explained in 
chapter 6, postponed further work on the library until the College had 
dealt with other matters more immediately pressing. 

Meanwhile, the trustees considered two other new buildings: a fac- 
ulty apartment house and a president's house. On February 17, 1947, 
the Executive Committee discussed the possibility of a building that 
would contain apartments for eight to twelve faculty members but ta- 
bled the motion because eight apartments would cost $120,000.^^ 
Though in different form, the same idea emerged the following Novem- 
ber. The Executive Committee first considered building a small, tempo- 
rary house on campus which faculty could use later when the College 
finally constructed a permanent president's house. '♦o Ultimately, on Feb- 
ruary 9, 1948, the committee decided to buy an off-campus house for 
the president. Mr. Hobbs, then the vice president of the College, subse- 
quently succeeded in purchasing the C. H. Williamson house on Joppa 
Road. 

As the Towson campus grew, the College continued to reduce its real 
estate downtown, selling Bennett Hall on February 11, 1945, to the 
State of Maryland for $50,000. On April 29, 1946, it sold Fensal and 
Vingolf Halls and the land between them to the War Department for 
$134,000.'" 



The trustees' concerns with Goucher land in Towson extended beyond 
the campus proper. As we saw earlier, the trustees had, as early as 
December 1930, favored the idea of developing College property for 
commercial purposes in the vicinity of Towson Corner. On May 20, 
1946, Vice President Hobbs informed the Executive Committee that 
"department store interests" (that is, Mr. Albert Hutzler) wished to 
cooperate with Goucher in a commercial development. On June 24 
Judge Niles moved approval of the negotiations undertaken to that 
point. Although local residents opposed the College's petition to rezone 
the Joppa Road property as commercial, the Zoning Commissioner 
granted Goucher's petition. "♦- This decision was appealed but upheld, 
and on June 16, 1947, the Board of Trustees announced that the College 



had sold or leased pieces of property at the intersection of Joppa and 
Dulaney Valley Roads to Hutzler Brothers Company for a joint commer- 
cial enterprise. In July, at the College's request, the Baltimore County 
Zoning Commission designated an additional i oo feet of land on Joppa 
Road east of Dulaney Valley Road as commercial ;-*^ this property was 
leased in September to Hutzler Brothers. *♦■♦ The Executive Committee 
viewed, on December 8, a model of the proposed development of 
Goucher's real estate in this area, including Hutzler's department store 
(in its present location) with its sunken parking lot for 587 cars, a 
motion picture theatre, a large grocery store, and approximately forty- 
five small shops. So began a series of complicated negotiations leading 
ultimately to the present shopping center between Fairmount Avenue 
and Joppa Road.''^ 



The Final Years 



During the forties the College received several welcomed gifts, including 
a $5,000 grant from the McCormick Company to build two badly 
needed tennis courts and the offer of Mr. John Sherwood to donate 
advertising time on all his company's radio programs in Baltimore and 
Washington to promote a benefit, featuring Cornelia Otis Skinner, 
sponsored by the Baltimore Alumnae Club.-'*' But a gift of $10,000 from 
the Hoffberger family, to be applied to the construction of a new resi- 
dence hall wing, caused some searching of conscience by several trustees 
because the check was drawn on the Guenther Brewing Company. The 
Executive Committee voted without dissent on December 28, 1943, to 
accept the check. The next day a motion to reconsider was introduced. 
After some discussion, the committee again voted to accept the check. 
Still, when the matter reached the full board on January 20, 1944, while 
eight trustees voted for acceptance, six voted against. The opponents 
argued that to accept money from such a source constituted a "change 
of policy." With President Robertson maintaining firmly that there was 
no definable policy relevant to the issue, the motion to accept the gift 
passed.'*'' 

Shortly thereafter, on February 20, 1 945, the news came to the Board 
of Trustees that Goiicher would be the beneficiary of the Julia Rogers 
estate, appraised at approximately $890,000, the largest gift to date in 
the College's history. ''^ On February 4, 1946, the Executive Committee 
heard that the executor had rendered a first accounting which indicated 
that the residue of the estate accruing to the College would amount to 
approximately $946,176.36, almost a million dollars.'*^ 



Gifts to the College 



While engaging in these activities, the administration underwent a series 
of changes which would lead eventually to the transition to a new 
presidency. First, the trustees asked Professor Clinton I. Winslow to 
accept the position of provost.^" The role of promotional officer of the 
College apparently did not tempt Professor Winslow, who was more 
interested in the architectural development of the new campus. Ulti- 
mately, the trustees appointed him administrative assistant "to aid in 
studying the architectural needs of the College and to help secure finan- 
cial means to realize plans including removal of the entire college to 



Changes in 

Administrative 

Personnel 



Towson."^' Since the nature of Professor Winslow's appointment did 
not fill the need for a person to handle such matters as the sale of 
downtown properties and the leasing of land at Towson Corner, the 
board created the office of Vice President (without portfolio) and elected 
Mr. Clark S. Hobbs, a senior editor at the Baltimore Evening Sun, to fill 
the position for the next five years.^- Mr. Hobbs took office on June i, 
1945, while Professor Winslow and his Faculty Planning Committee 
continued to prepare for the relocation of all operations and personnel 
from the city to Towson. 

President Robertson had announced to the Executive Committee on 
February 7, 1944, that he and Mrs. E. L. Robinson would be married on 
February 14 and requested leave of absence for three weeks. The com- 
mittee offered congratulations and granted the president a three-week 
vacation.^3 \^ October of the following year, noting the tradition he had 
maintained of supporting mandatory retirement at age sixty-five. Presi- 
dent Robertson submitted his resignation to the Board of Trustees "on 
this, my sixty-fifth birthday.'"'"' The board declined to accept his resig- 
nation and when he resubmitted it a year later, the trustees asked Presi- 
dent Robertson to remain in office until June 30, 1948.^^ On October 
21, 1946, the Executive Committee received a letter from Dr. Robertson 
accepting the trustees' request that he serve until June 30, 1948, but 
declining on principle their offer to confer on him an honorary degree. 
To confer a degree on a member of one's own institution, he said, was 
frowned on by the American Association of Universities, the Middle 
States Association, and the Committee on Qualifications of Phi Beta 
Kappa. Furthermore, he believed that a college whose mission was the 
higher education of women should confer degrees, in course and honor- 
ary, exclusively on women. 

Pleased with Dr. Robertson's willingness to continue as president 
until June 1 948, the Board of Trustees set about the task of choosing his 
successor. On July 3 1 , 1 947, the Committee on the Selection of a Presi- 
dent, which included three elected faculty members (Professors Clinton 
I. Winslow, Gertrude Bussey, and Eleanor Spencer), submitted to the 
Board the name of Dr. Otto F. Kraushaar. With Dr. Kraushaar prompdy 
elected as the next president of Goucher College, the board, on June 14, 
1948, named Dr. Robertson president emeritus. President Kraushaar 
took office on July i.^^ 

While the board was involved with the presidential succession, sever- 
al developments occurred in the deanships. On May iz, 1947, the 
Executive Committee changed Frances R. Conner's title, student coun- 
selor, to dean of students. The year before, on October 7, the Executive 
Committee had accepted the resignation of Dorothy Stimson as dean of 
the College and had granted her a year's leave of absence at half-salary, 
after which she was to return to the College as a full-time member of the 
History Department.^^ Dr. Louise Kelley, professor of chemistry, agreed 
to serve as acting dean during the year of Dr. Stimson's leave. President 
Robertson informed the Executive Committee on January iz, 1948, 
that he and President-elect Kraushaar had discussed the deanship of the 
College and had approached Dr. Eleanor Spencer, professor of fine arts, 
but she had declined. Subsequently, Dr. Kelley consented to continue as 
acting dean for a second year.^'* 



The Final Years 



Apart from the perennial problems of fund-raising and bricks and mor- 
tar, the trustees and the administration had, as usual, a variety of other 
matters to deal with during the last years of the Robertson administra- 
tion. First, there was the question of raising tuition and other fees, 
always a risky decision. The board voted on February 20, 1945, to 
increase the tuition from $500 to $600 and the maintenance fee from 
$525 to $575. Then, later in the year, the problem of Professor 
McDougle's radio program arose. Dr. Ivan E. McDougle, professor of 
economics and sociology, had been broadcasting a Sunday program of 
commentary on economic matters, and Goucher's name was promi- 
nently mentioned both on the air and in advertisements for the broad- 
casts. The program had aroused adverse criticism, and since it was a 
commercial venture sponsored by a local chiropractor, the board asked 
Professor McDougle to stop using the College's name. He complied 
with the request until, shortly thereafter, the series of broadcasts came 
to an end.^** 

An important concern — though, happily, not a problem — of the 
Board of Trustees during the Robertson era involved the College's aca- 
demic standing. On January 11, 1947, The Middle States Association, 
the accrediting body for institutions situated in New York State, New 
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, the District of Columbia, 
and U.S. territories in the Caribbean, set up a program in which all 
Middle States institutions would be visited within a twelve-year period. 
This later became a ten-year cycle, and Goucher has so far had three 
team visits, in 1958, 1967, and 1977, each leading to reaffirmation of 
accreditation. 60 



Other Trustee 
Concerns 



A question arose in the forties that provided a rare example of an issue of 
direct concern to all College constituencies: should the College's "fra- 
ternities" (as they had always been called at Goucher) continue after the 
College moved to Towson? In 1944 the pages of Weekly contained a 
series of letters from students favorable or opposed to the "fraternities," 
and the debate continued sporadically for several years. On October 20, 
1947, the Executive Committee received requests from the Baltimore 
Alumnae Clubs of the Kappa Alpha Theta and Alpha Gamma Delta 
sororities for information concerning their future status at Goucher. 
Finally, in a report to the Faculty, a Committee on the Future Status of 
Sororities concluded, after weighing the evidence, that sororities did not 
benefit Goucher College and recommended that they terminate when 
the College officially moved to the county campus. The committee sug- 
gested establishing a comprehensive social program to fill the gap left by 
the abolished sororities.* ' When the Executive Committee of the Board 
of Trustees adopted the Faculty committee's report on May 3, 1948, the 
Goucher "fraternities" came to an end.*- 

Though the sororities disappeared, the Tone Committee remained a 
potent force on campus in the forties. Its principal task at that time, to 
maintain proper standards for student dress on all occasions, put the 



Student Life 



■ 




kal 




^■fl\ ^^^ ^'■y'-mn^ 


l^i^" 


1 


f^ 








V ^ 


^■IhL ^^^^K 








BBi fi^ift 


rjl^ 


ifc. .'^'jflSlfc.. 


;^^A ; 


hH 




^^^ 


^^HH^^^E^^^ 


'' "■ 






Hk 


^^^~^^ 


^^1^ 


mn 



Group in the hay, 1950s 



committee at pains to clarify the new rules applicable to the Towson site, 
because students were now living and working simultaneously in two 
quite different environments. According to a Weekly article published 
on October 20, 1944, "The Students' Organization feels that adherence 
to these rules is so important that a student who repeatedly violates 
them may be brought before the Judicial Board." The rules stipulated 
for the Towson campus were, in summary: 

1 . No shorts on campus and no slacks off campus except when riding 
a bicycle 

2. No slacks or shorts in the dining room or drawing room at any 
time 

3. No housecoats in the recreation room, main hall, or dining room 

4. No riding clothes or bandannas in the dining room for dinner 

5. No smoking on the streets of Towson or outside the Towson wait- 
ing room 

6. No sunbathing anywhere on campus in sight of the buildings 

7. Sunbathing allowed at all times on the lawn between East and 
South Houses 

8. No sunbathing on the sun deck after one o'clock on Sunday after- 
noon; at all other times, shorts and halters, shorts and shirts, or 
bathing suits may be worn, but men are prohibited from the recrea- 
tion room during sunbathing hours 

9. No bedroom slippers or ski-sock shoes in the dining room or any 
other "public" place in the dormitory 

10. No lumber jackets or shirttails worn outside of skirts at dinner 
time^^ 



The Tone Committee lasted almost two more decades, disappearing The Final Years 

in 1962, when, with changing times, it became outmoded in the eyes of 
students.^'' 



The eighteen years of the Robertson administration were among the Conclusion 
most productive in Goucher's history, despite seemingly relentless ad- 
versity. Apart from some weakness in the financial area, the magnitude 
of President Robertson's achievements during his eighteen years in office 
marks him as one of the best of the College's presidents. Declining 
enrollments resulting in mounting deficits, obstacles to fund-raising 
made more formidable by the depression, unavailable labor and build- 
ing materials during the war years, even natural phenomena like the 
inclement spring weather that delayed the opening of three buildings or 
the tornado that threatened to destroy Mary Fisher Hall — all these 
frustrations together could easily have paralyzed the leaders of any 
small and insufficiently endowed college. Perhaps partly because he 
could not foresee all these potential disasters, the new president in 1930 
presented a platform involving improvements in governance, a re- 
vitalized curriculum, and better control of finances. The outcome was a 
restructuring of the College and of the curriculum that lasted virtually 
intact for thirty years, some features of which still survive today — a half- 
century later. 

To be sure, changes in governance and curriculum — relatively inex- 
pensive undertakings — could have been carried through despite severe 
financial handicaps, but even the idea of a college with minimal endow- 
ment beginning construction of an entirely new campus in the midst of 
the worst economic depression in history and with World War II loom- 
ing ahead suggests either foolhardiness or heroism on the part of those 
who accepted the risks. Goucher's move from city to county required a 
spirit of exceptional forbearance and cooperation on the part of faculty 
and students and the strong support of alumnae. All these qualities were 
much in evidence during the transition. Few other institutions have 
successfully surmounted such obstacles. While it inevitably made mis- 
takes, the Robertson administration was marked by outstanding 
achievements, and the seemingly indomitable spirit of all members of 
the community in this difficult period represents a human victory in 
which the College may take justifiable pride. 



Part Two 



-^^ ^^5^ 



The Kraushaar 

Administration 

(1948-1967) 



■^^ 'Cf '^ 



t. .vy-, 






" '^^. 

V"'"^'' 



r^ 







r 


■^ 


f. 


^J«J 




J^ i 



FIVE 



Early Perceptions 

of G o u c h e r by 

a New President 

(1948) 



M ^^uri: 



uring the early months of 1982, 
1982, at the suggestion of President Rhoda M. Dorsey, President Emer- 
itus Otto F. Kraushaar recorded 156 pages of personal reminiscences 
based on his nineteen years as president of the College.' The resulting 
untitled manuscript is intended — as he says in his preface — "chiefly for 
the eyes of any future historians of Goucher College." The purpose of 
the document is manifest: "It is not my aim to write an objective history 
of all that transpired at Goucher from 1948 to 1967 during the years of 
my administration, but rather to record my insider's view of certain 
selected developments — how they originated, who helped shape and 
influence them, and my impressions of their outcome." Readers of the 
following chapters will readily measure President Kraushaar's contribu- 
tion to the understanding of events that took place during his admin- 
istration: he has placed the College and its current historian greatly in 
his debt. (All quotations and paraphrases of Dr. Kraushaar in part z of 
this book, unless otherwise noted, are from his unpublished manu- 
script.) 

In the preface to his memoirs. President Kraushaar writes: "My term 
at Goucher happened to coincide with years of rapid growth in Ameri- 
can higher education, except at the very end, when the national student 
rebellion was emerging. Although years of growth pose many difficult 
problems, they are easier to cope with than years of recession and in- 
creasing limitations." Indeed, coming as they did between the struggle 
for survival that characterized the Robertson administration and the 
crises that have occasionally marked the post-Kraushaar period, these 
middle years create an effect similar to the quiet episode that serves as a 
buffer between the more turbulent first and last movements of numerous 
symphonies. When one considers, however, the monumental tasks and 
problems facing Dr. Kraushaar as he took over the leadership of 

Mary Fisher Hall 



Goucher, one realizes the limits of the analogy: while the volume — 
measured in terms of adversity — descended to mezzo forte, the tempo of 
events during the nearly two decades from 1948 to 1967 was rarely 
adagio. 



First Impressions of a When the chairman of Goucher's Board of Trustees first approached 
Goucher Presidential Otto F. Kraushaar about the presidency of the College, the candidate, a 
Candidate professor of philosophy at Smith College, had recently returned from 

three wartime years (1943-46) as an army officer. Dr. Kraushaar had 
begun his military duties as chief education officer at the Middle East 
command headquarters in Cairo. In the fall of 1944 he was recalled to 
the United States to undertake a mission as field representative of the 
army education branch, "a kind of travelling salesman of Army Educa- 
tion Services," as Dr. Kraushaar puts it. Upon completion of that assign- 
ment, he was ordered to report to General MacArthur's command head- 
quarters in the Pacific theatre. "I remained there as chief education 
officer of the Pacific command through the move of the advanced eche- 
lon to Tokyo and provided some assistance to the reconstruction of 
the Japanese system of education under General MacArthur's ste- 
wardship." 

"My point about my Army service," Dr. Kraushaar explains, "is that 
it not only enabled me to learn a great deal about administration on a 
vast scale, but also showed me that I had some talent in that direction. 
Indeed, upon my return to the classroom at Smith, from which I had 
been on leave for three action-packed years, I found teaching relatively 
more parochial and tepid, less challenging, and far less exciting than the 
military duties I had left behind. This was the primary reason why I gave 
some thought to shifting from teaching to college administration." 
Though the possibility of a presidency had arisen several times earlier 




President Otto F. Kraushnar, 1948-67 



and had even appealed to him, this was not something that Dr. Early Perceptions 

Kraushaar "yearned for at that time." Nonetheless, when Mr. Francis 
A. Davis, then chairman of the Board of Trustees, first wrote to him in 
the spring of 1947 about the Goucher presidency. Dr. Kraushaar accept- 
ed Mr. Davis's invitation to visit Baltimore, confer with a trustee com- 
mittee, and have a look at the College. Beginning with this first visit. Dr. 
Kraushaar's own words best express his impressions of Goucher. 

"It is difficult to describe my impressions of Baltimore and of 
Goucher during the day and a half I spent on my first visit. I knew, of 
course, that I was being scrutinized by everyone 1 met, so I naturally 
wondered what kind of an impression I was making; but since I enjoyed 
the happy state of one not too concerned about moving or changing his 
vocation, I could afford to be quite myself without the temptation to put 
on any kind of front. In other words, I was not aching for the job. 
Moreover, what I saw of Baltimore and Goucher during that first visit, 
particularly the physical aspects of the College and the city, left me with 
grave doubts as to whether I wanted to work in such an environment. 

"My prior impressions of Baltimore, not a good augury, consisted of 
several stopovers by rail during my war service, and a motor trip 
through the city on Route U.S. 40 some years earlier. Of course, my basis 
of comparison for Goucher was Smith College, at that time in one of the 
brightest and best periods of its long and distinguished history. Though I 
was plainly depressed with much of what I saw, I also felt that Goucher 
had all kinds of potential, as yet only partially realized. So, on the rail 
trip home, as I reviewed my day and a half in Baltimore, I came up with a 
very mixed assessment. I felt fortunate that I was neither seeking the job 
nor truly in need of it; at the same time, I felt that I saw enough room for 
growth to warrant my continued interest. Still, if the negotiations ended 
right then and there, I thought this would be no personal loss whatever. 

"Then came the next visit, sometime in early summer; this time I met 
members of the Faculty Selection Committee. The members of this com- 
mittee quizzed me closely, in a friendly way, about my philosophy of 
education and my views on faculty participation in matters of college 
governance. I remember being particularly impressed by Eleanor 
Spencer, professor of fine arts, and Clinton Winslow, professor of politi- 
cal science and Dr. Robertson's administrative assistant. I was taken on 
a full and extensive tour of the physical facilities of the College, and 
again I had considerable pause for thought about the prospect of mov- 
ing to Goucher should I be selected. The old campus looked shabby and 
worn by comparison with college campuses I knew. I did, however, 
admire the architecture of old Goucher Hall and some of the other 
downtown buildings, grimy as they were. As for the new campus, 
though it seemed somewhat unreal in its undeveloped form, it suggested 
almost limitless possibilities. 

"The approach to the 'new campus' at the time was depressing. At the 
corner of Dulaney Valley and Joppa Roads, where Hutzler's store now 
stands, huddled a decrepit inn with a rutted, unpaved parking lot; on the 
opposite corner squatted an old grocery store with heaped-over trash 
cans directly by the intersection of Joppa and Dulaney. Dulaney Valley 
Road was nothing but a narrow little way closely flanked on both sides 
by locust trees festooned with honeysuckle vines. Then, abruptly, one 
came to an opening on the right — the original gateway, located about 59 



The Kraushaar three hundred yards above the present entrance. Pleasantly landscaped. 

Administration that old entry offered a strong contrast to the unkempt condition of the 

woods and roadway leading to it. A turn in the straight campus drive led 
past the rump of a building destined to become the science building; 
around a curve the butt of another building appeared, the first stub of 
Van Meter Hall; and then, suddenly, Mary Fisher Hall, the only com- 
pleted edifice on the campus at the time, loomed starkly out of the 
landscape. Beyond Mary Fisher Hall, construction work progressed 
slowly on what were later to become the first two houses of Anna 
Heubeck Hall. That was all. The 'new campus,' as it was then always 
referred to, consisted of just this cluster set in the midst of an island of 
grass surrounded by an almost impenetrable tangle of shrubs, vines, and 
trees. Fortunately, many summers of my adolescence and college years 
spent working at construction jobs of various kinds had awakened in me 
an interest in architecture. So the ordeal of building a new campus and 
moving a college was not quite as overwhelming to me as it might have 
been. 

"After that second visit, a letter offering me the presidency arrived. 
The offer itself is rather interesting in retrospect because of the change in 
salary scale brought about by post-war inflation. I was offered an initial 
salary of $12,000 per year, an entertainment fund of $1,000, an addi- 
tional allowance for travel and entertainment for the benefit of the 
College, the 'services of a Negro houseman,' and a residence complete 
with heat, light, water, and telephone. As I read this letter, I began to 
appreciate that the financial advantages of moving would be substantial. 
The proposed salary and perquisites amounted to about triple my salary 
at Smith College, then $6,500. 1 faced an inducement which I could not 
easily reject. 

"After conferring once more with Marjorie Nicholson [then dean of 
Smith College], I finally accepted the offer, but not without some misgiv- 
ings. My appointment, confirmed and settled in early July 1947, would 
take effect on July i, 1948." 



President Kraushaar Here again. Dr. Kraushaar's words describing the situation he encoun- 

Assumes His Netv tered when he arrived in Baltimore are more eloquent than any para- 

Duties phrase: 

"Though my new duties at Goucher were slated to begin July i, 
1948, by prearrangement with Vice President Clark Hobbs, who as- 
sured me that nothing much needed to be done until after the Fourth of 
July, we planned to arrive the evening of July 3. Clark had reserved a 
room for us at the Belvedere Hotel; we had asked that there be no fuss or 
special reception to start with. As we approached Baltimore, we found 
ourselves quite by chance on Joppa Road, the location of the house 
which the College had acquired for our residence. Naturally curious 
about our new home, we continued on Joppa Road until we arrived at 
number 206. To our delight, the front door was open. We discovered the 
sole occupant, a College workman, Joshua Skipper, known simply as 
Skip — a short, rather stocky, very inarticulate person with a somewhat 
tortured and twisted face and one bad eye.- He, of course, did not know 
us from Adam, though after we identified ourselves, he urged us to have 

60 a good look around. It was plain that the house was some days away 



from being ready for occupancy. We liked what we saw of the premises. Early Perceptions 

particularly the yard sloping down from Joppa Road to the boundary of 
the campus (there was no Goucher Boulevard at the time) and hand- 
somely landscaped with many English boxwoods. So, we continued to 
the Belvedere, where we spent our first days in a hotel room with a very 
noisy, erratic air conditioner trying its ancient best to cope with a typ- 
ically hot and humid Baltimore weekend in July. 

"By the time the Fourth dawned, eager to start work, I walked the 
short distance from the Belvedere to old Goucher Hall, empty because 
of the holiday. I found my office readily enough and, on the presidential 
desk, a pile of notes and documents that Dr. Robertson had very 
thoughtfully left for me pertaining to matters with which I had to come 
to grips quickly. They included such items as stafif positions that re- 
mained to be filled. 

"So 1 spent the better part of a warm Fourth of July in empty Goucher 
Hall poring over the College's records. The initial experience of coming 
to grips with Goucher's problems was very disquieting. It became appar- 
ent at once that the College was in dire financial straits; that it was, in 
fact, skating on very thin ice. Somehow, Dr. Robertson had managed to 
close the budget year 1947—48 with a surplus, but only by paying 
atrociously and unbelievably low salaries. Faculty salaries at Goucher 
were approximately half those at Smith for comparable rank and length 
of service. After giving a lifetime of teaching to Goucher, many pro- 
fessors were now approaching retirement with salaries in the range of 
$3,000 to $4,000. By comparison, I had departed from Smith as a 
recently promoted full professor at a salary of $6,500. Not a single 
member of the Goucher College faculty was receiving anything like that 
amount, even though in many cases their years of service to the College 
greatly exceeded mine. Then and there, I made up my mind that one of 
my first priorities had to be raising faculty salaries to decent levels as 
quickly as possible. 

"I also had to grapple with the matter of the tiny, insignificant endow- 
ment of the College, which added up to less than a million dollars. In 
spite of much talk of the Julia Rogers bequest of just under $1 million 
which was temporarily listed among endowment assets, this gift would 
soon be liquidated to realize funds to pay for the construction of the 
future Julia Rogers Library. It was apparent, moreover, that the trustees 
and administration of the College had been thinking quite unrealisti- 
cally about building progress on the new campus. Judge Emory Niles, 
chairman of the Board of Trustees prior to Francis Davis' assumption of 
that office, worked closely with the firm of Moore and Hutchins, the 
architects of the College, who had won the national architectural com- 
petition sponsored by Goucher in 1938. Judge Niles was fast friends 
with Messrs. Moore and Hutchins, the two principals of the firm, and 
though he did his utmost to speed the rebuilding of the College on the 
planning and architectural side, as a judge, he felt he could do little 
about the missing ingredient — money. Obviously, the efforts to get con- 
struction on the new campus going again after World War II had re- 
sulted in a record of deep frustration, made so by the lack of money and 
by the lack of any kind of realistic plan and campaign to raise the 
substantial funds required for that purpose. 

"The only financial campaign in progress at the time was the Alum- 61 



nae Gift Building Fund to raise $500,000 for the completion of Van 
Meter Hall. The campaign was managed by a doughty group of Bal- 
timore alumnae without the benefit of professional fund-raising coun- 
sel. It soon became apparent to me that their effort, however laudatory it 
seemed, was penny-wise and pound-foolish; the objective was too small 
and pursued without the benefit of real organization or professional 
know-how. That such a project had been conceived and launched at all 
proved that the administration of the College and the trustees had not 
begun to come to grips with the magnitude of the problem they faced. 

"I had some inkling of this rather dismal state of affairs before taking 
over my duties at Goucher. Though the perquisites of office included a 
residence for the president's family, at the time of the negotiations no 
such residence was available. There were two prior presidents' houses in 
Goucher history, both still in the possession of the College in 1948, but 
my wife and I rejected both for various reasons. The first was the elegant 
Goucher House, Dr. John Franklin Goucher's townhouse designed by 
Stanford White, on St. Paul between Z3rd and Z4th Streets. In 1948 it 
was serving as a dormitory. The other president's house, situated at the 
corner of Charles and 2.3rd Street, was often referred to as "The Presi- 
dent's House," although by 1948 it too had been pressed into service as 
a dormitory for students. That house had been the dwelling of Dr. Guth 
and his family during the 1910s and zos. It was offered to us as a 
possible place to live, but after some reflection, my wife and I decided 
against it for several reasons. For one thing, the house was producing 
some income for the College as a downtown dormitory; moreover, we 
had fairly strong personal reasons for not wanting to begin our tour of 
duty at Goucher as city-dwellers. 

"Judge Emory Niles, ever eager to begin some new construction on 
the Towson campus, conceived the idea of asking Moore and Hutchins 
to design a new residence that could be temporarily occupied by the 
president and then converted into the original unit of a faculty housing 
project on the campus. Moore and Hutchins were authorized by the 
trustees to draw up a plan for such a house, but no one liked or approved 
the result. The College's architectural Advisory Board vetoed the plan, 
and both my wife and I felt that living in a house isolated at some 
distance from the major college buildings on the new campus was 
scarcely an inviting prospect. Moreover, I thought that with all the 
College's urgent institutional needs to construct essential college 
buildings — laboratories, dormitories, a new library, and numerous oth- 
er facilities absolutely crucial to the College's work and existence — 
committing the new campus plan to a faculty housing project was un- 
wise.^ 

"The trustees finally solved the housing dilemma in a very sensible 
way by authorizing Vice President Hobbs to search in the area of the 
new college campus for a suitable residential property that could be 
acquired by the College as a President's House. In a few weeks, he 
recommended to the trustees the Williamson property at zo6 East Joppa 
Road; the transaction was settled and the house vacated just in time for 
our arrival in Baltimore in July 1948. 

"The point of this long digression about the house is to illustrate the 
Board's lack of direction and resolve in facing up to the numerous 
problems that it had to confront, especially with reference to the lack of 



a firm plan for prosecuting the rebuilding of the College and raising the 
money essential for that staggering enterprise. On that lonely Fourth of 
July in hot, empty Goucher Hall, 1 realized the enormity of the task 
before me. The critical need was to step up the fund-raising activities of 
the College as speedily as possible, to begin the preparation of a step-by- 
step move that would complete the transfer to the new campus. At the 
same time, I was committed to lifting faculty salaries substantially. The 
College's needs in terms of funding extended to practically every aspect 
of its activity. " 



Early Perceptions 



With the end of the summer vacation, President Kraushaar discovered 
new challenges: 

"Once the College had opened and the students had returned, the 
division of the College between two campuses separated by eight miles 
posed a very serious handicap in a number of respects: student recruit- 
ment, scheduling of classes, access of students to the College's central 
library, faculty time and wear and tear in being transported by bus to 
classes at some distance, added expense for bus transportation. More- 
over, the lack of adequate funding for the prosecution of the plan to 
rebuild the campus, for faculty salaries, for scholarships, for mainte- 
nance purposes — all these combined to place Goucher in a difficult 
competitive position with other institutions that were enjoying a more 
normal existence. Back of it all, I sensed one step that would have to be 
taken in due course — rebuilding the Board of Trustees by recruiting new 
and younger people who could help brighten Goucher's image and 
heighten the confidence and pride of the community of Baltimore in the 
College. During those first weeks I asked myself many times: How did I 
ever get myself into this predicament? 

"But the situation was not without its positive factors. For one thing, 
a very good spirit persisted among the faculty of the College, a rather old 
faculty overwhelmingly made up of women, among them some truly 
excellent teachers and scholars. The more I read of the record of the 
College in the past, the more I could see that there was a good solid 
academic foundation to build on. Moreover, another factor remained in 
our favor, at least temporarily: in 1948, the glut of returning war vet- 
erans seeking a college education had not yet fully subsided, so one 
could look forward to a year or two of adequate student applications 
and enrollment."* But the demographic prognostications made it clear 
that this would be a short-lived advantage; I knew that by the early 
1950s, once the returning veterans had completed their education, stu- 
dent enrollment would drop. 

"With the opening of College and the return of the students, the 
tempo of events picked up rapidly. 1 had prepared carefully for the 
opening Convocation, the occasion of my first introduction to the entire 
College community. I well understood the importance of getting off to a 
good start as 1 faced this new community of students, faculty, and mem- 
bers of my administrative staff. I knew that among them was a coterie of 
persons who felt close to and admired Dr. Robertson — a typical situa- 
tion whenever there is a transition from one presidency to another. In 
their eyes I was on trial. I understood all this, so I was determined to be 
patient and to win them over gradually to my way of thinking and doing. 



New Perspectives 
as the College 
Opened in 1948 



The Kraushaar "It is not for me, as Dr. David Allan Robertson's successor, to evalu- 

Administration ate or comment on his administration of the College. Let me say only 

that I had an opportunity to know him well enough to become aware of 
the differences between us and the different ways in which we ap- 
proached our duties at Goucher College. He was inclined to shyness and 
to seek protection in a certain formality in his relations with others, 
including members of the College staff and faculty. My style was by 
nature different; 1 was inclined to conduct business affairs in an informal 
way, to try to build up congenial relationships with the people I worked 
with, and to repose the maximum of trust in each member of the faculty 
and each College staff officer with whom I dealt repeatedly. In other 
words, my life style and administrative style differed markedly from Dr. 
Robertson's, and many in the Convocation appeared to sense and wel- 
come the change. 

"When Dr. Robertson came to Goucher in the fall of 1930, he inher- 
ited a somewhat confused situation as a result of the prolonged illness 
and eventual death of Dr. Guth in the late 1920's. Dr. Robertson ap- 
peared to everyone to be exceptionally well qualified for the Goucher 
presidency. His inauguration in April, 193 1, was a brilliant affair with a 
large attendance of visiting scholars and dignitaries, all accompanied by 
much fanfare and publicity. At the time he took office, he had a fresh 
vision of what a college curriculum for women could and should be. At 
his first faculty meeting he described his ambitions for Goucher in the 
following words: 'Let us work out an educational program in this in- 
stitution that will capture the imagination of businessmen in Baltimore, 
New York, and elsewhere; we should then have little difficulty in realiz- 
ing our dream of the future. . . . Our educational program is more 
important than our architectural future."* In other words, it was Dr. 
Robertson's hope that he could, by the introduction of a sparkling new 
curriculum, develop the financial support needed to solve the many 
problems he had inherited. But the situation was even more complicated 
than that. He took office at a time when the depression threatened the 
solvency not only of private colleges, but of all other institutions as well. 
So, instead of undertaking to raise money to move the College to the 
new campus, he chose to concentrate for the first four or five years on 
working closely with the faculty in reforming the curriculum. 

"That curriculum was still solidly in place when 1 arrived at Goucher. 
It had its strong adherents and defenders among the faculty and recent 
alumnae. It had certain distinct merits. When I arrived in 1948, the 
college curricular reform that was in the air nationally involved the 
introduction of newly designed, integrated, general education courses; 
there was a determined effort to overcome the departmentalization and 
fragmentation of the students' course of study. The Goucher Curricu- 
lum, on the other hand, undertook to integrate the students' program by 
means of sophomore general examinations based on eight defined ob- 
jectives of general education. The slogan governing the students' selec- 
tion from the list of largely departmental courses during the first two 
years was 'freedom under guidance.' 

"During the period of my return from Army service and my leave- 
taking from Northampton, I had been active on the Smith College 
Curriculum Committee, which was engaged in a curricular reform of 
64 another kind. Taking a leaf out of Harvard's experience, described in a 



book, General Education in a Free Society, published by the Harvard Early Perceptions 

University Press in 1945, we actively redesigned the Smith curriculum by 
the introduction of a number of basic general education courses. I had 
long ago reached the conclusion that one of the serious weaknesses of 
undergraduate education in America was the fragmentation of the stu- 
dents' course of study into numerous departmental courses, each of 
which had its departmental rationale but was often discontinuous with 
the courses of other related departments. 

"Some of the Goucher faculty had gotten wind of my interest in 
general education through redesigned interdepartmental courses and 
were somewhat apprehensive that 1 might try to precipitate another full 
battle over curricular reform. As I became acquainted with my Goucher 
duties and the personnel and curriculum of the College in the fall of 
1948, 1 soon decided that the burning question at the time was not more 
curricular reform, but moving the College. I was sufficiently persuaded 
of the merits of Dr. Robertson's curriculum to be willing to forego any 
revisionary attention to it at the outset. Furthermore, the attrition suf- 
fered by the College because of the divided campus was real, immediate, 
and constant; so, instead of choosing a course which I would have found 
much more congenial to my own interests — that of enlisting the faculty 
in reconsidering the curriculum — I chose the (to me) far less interesting 
and more difficult course of pushing the planning and the money-raising 
for the completion of the new campus. In other words, I chose a strategy 
quite different from the one Dr. Robertson had followed in 1930, and 
for very good reasons. 

"To return to my first Convocation talk, the response of my audience 
made me feel that I had taken an important first step in earning recogni- 
tion and confidence. Students came to wish me well, and several college 
officers and members of the faculty also came forward to extend their 
good wishes. 1 think we all realized that we had to work together, that 
we could work together, to increase Goucher's stature. 

"It was apparent to me that, to be ready for the years of fund-raising 
on a scale much larger than anything ever before undertaken by 
Goucher, the entire college community — faculty, staff, governing board, 
alumnae, as well as our home city of Baltimore — had first to prepare 
psychologically for this difficult ordeal. It was up to me to inspire fresh 
hope and confidence that the long-delayed move to the new campus 
could and would be accomplished expeditiously, and that, in the mean- 
time, faculty salaries would be raised and the morale of the College 
community would be lifted. Not a few skeptics, both within and outside 
the College community, were resigned to accepting a second-class status 
for Goucher. After all, they argued, the College was a quiet Methodist 
institution with a good but narrow academic reputation, a college that 
most people in Baltimore knew little about and took no particular pride 
in. A major goal of the 'psychological preparation' I had in mind was to 
interpret the College, its past accomplishments and its current problems 
and needs, nationally to the community of Goucher alumnae and locally 
to the business and corporate community of Baltimore. 

"I was not clear at first how to do this, except by losing no oppor- 
tunity to present the case for the College to various audiences. I was 
confident that I could get along with the Goucher students, for I always 
enjoyed excellent rapport with young people wherever I had taught — at 6j 



The Kramhaar Iowa, Harvard, Radcliffe, Smith, Mount Holyoke, and Amherst. Re- 

Administration peated invitations to speak to Smith alumnae clubs had taught me about 

alumnae attitudes toward their Alma Mater, both pro and con. I had 
talked to enough non-academic groups to know something about what 
outsiders most admire and fear in a college. And, since 1 had spent 
practically all my life in an academic environment,* I felt reasonably 
confident that 1 could establish good rapport with the Goucher faculty 
and staff and with academic colleagues in neighboring institutions. 
Though I approached the task at Goucher with some trepidation, I felt 
by no means devoid of hope and spirit." 



Completion of the 
'Minimal Campus ' 



H 



. aving decided by the begin- 
ning of the 1948—49 academic year that his first priority must be the 
consoUdation of all Goucher activities on the new campus since "further 
delays could entail the bankruptcy and possible demise of the College," 
President Kraushaar asked Vice President Hobbs to make "a survey of 
the financial condition of the College in relation to building needs, 
faculty salaries, and maintenance requirements, in a long-range pro- 
gram to be submitted for discussion to the Executive Committee and to 
the full Board of Trustees." Dr. Kraushaar hoped for a realistic ten-year 
development plan with clear goals and firm timing for each step along 
the way. He announced this initiative to the Executive Committee on 
September 20, 1948, and at his first meeting with the full board he urged 
"a rapid completion of the transfer of the College to the County cam- 
pus," reported on Mr. Hobbs's study (then in progress), and suggested 
"the organization of a campaign for funds." Judge Morris Soper then 
moved that "the Executive Committee be requested to re-study existing 
plans for the development of a campus building program and report 
back to the Board."' 

When he took office. Dr. Kraushaar found the modus operandi of the 
existing planning process so well established and workable that he made 
few changes in it. The clearly defined roles of the president, trustees. 
Faculty Planning Committee, Architectural Advisory Board, and archi- 
tects had produced good results. Up to this point Messrs. Moore and 
Hutchins had been the sole architects of the campus. They met with 
President Kraushaar's general approval, with a few reservations: "On 
the whole, that firm served us well indeed, although I became con- 
cerned, by the mid-1950s, over the repetition and uniformity in design 
of both the exteriors and interiors of our buildings. Once they had 
settled on the design of Mary Fisher Hall, the first building erected on 



President Kraushaar's 
First Year 



67 



The Kraushaar the campus, there was a strong tendency to replicate certain elements of 

Administration that plan, including the fieldstone walls, the heavy red-tiled roofs which 

required a heavy and costly roof structure, and the particular fenestra- 
tion employed in Mary Fisher Hall. Reasonable, accommodating, and 
unwilling to compromise with quality, Messrs. Moore and Hutchins 
were good to work with. They rendered the design for Mary Fisher Hall, 
Anna Heubeck Hall (built in several stages),- Froelicher Hall, the origi- 
nal section of Lilian Welsh Hall, the three major buildings in the aca- 
demic unit other than the College Center, the Chapel, the Alumnae 
House, the Plant Laboratory (which later became the Psychology An- 
nex), and several temporary service buildings, one of which was later 
consumed by fire. ' Moreover, the disposition of the buildings according 
to the original master plan, which underwent considerable modifica- 
tions over the years, is basically theirs. 

"Looking over this process, I wish I could have foreseen from the 
plans that the placement and disposition of the various units of the 
campus — student residence halls, the student recreational and sports 
complex, and the academic complex, including the College Center — 
would prove somewhat too dispersed for a small college population. 
The architects and campus planners of the late 1930s were tempted into 
this rather extravagant use of space because the College had acquired 
421 acres, a truly enormous tract of land for a college the size of 
Goucher."'* 

By January 1949 Mr. Hobbs had completed his assigned task, and a 
special meeting of the full board convened "to consider the ten-year 
development program for Goucher College."'' At that meeting Dr. 
Kraushaar emphasized the urgency of maintaining the best faculty pos- 
sible and raising sufficient funds to move the entire College without 
delay. These remarks led to a protracted discussion about organizing a 
campaign under professional guidance to raise enough money to meet 
the immediate building needs and to protect the endowment capital 
invested in the residence halls. After this discussion the board author- 
ized the Executive Committee and the president to consult with a profes- 
sional fund-raising agency. *• 

While official minutes are essential sources of information for any 
college historian, they do not always tell the whole story, as the follow- 
ing observations by President Kraushaar demonstrate: "There was one 
issue that does not appear directly in the minutes of either the Executive 
Committee or the full Board but which proved to be a controlling factor 
in the discussion of the building program at our meetings. It concerned 
the architectural plans and the timing of the construction of the Julia 
Rogers Library. This was a favorite project with Dr. Robertson and, 
consequently, with the architects also.-' Judge Emory Niles shared their 
enthusiasm. Unfortunately, the architects were ready with a library plan 
so elaborate and costly that there was no point in putting it out for bids. 
As I gradually became acquainted with the personalities on the Board 
and the different concepts about the timing and order of the various 
building projects, 1 reached the conclusion that the library plan was 
being pushed prematurely. To build a library on the new campus while 
half the students were still living in downtown dormitories was logis- 
68 tically a mistake. Furthermore, the architects had not, up to that point. 



developed a realistic plan in terms of the Julia Rogers legacy of about one Completion of 

million dollars which had been earmarked for that project. So, one of "Minimal Campus " 

the goals I had in mind was to gain acceptance for a new and changed 
priority among the building projects on the new campus."'^ 

Earlier, President Kraushaar had tried to persuade the Board that 
Goucher's fund-raising efforts were seriously inadequate, and he had 
prepared the ground for obtaining professional help to organize a major 
campaign. On November 15, 1948, he had already presented to the 
Executive Committee Mr. John Price Jones, the head of a professional 
fund-raising firm based in New York. "This was a first step in encourag- 
ing the trustees to consider professional fund-raising assistance. My 
limited experience in campaigns at Smith convinced me that no large 
amount of money was likely to be raised by home-spun efforts such as 
the Alumnae Gift Building Campaign. Mr. Jones did not make a good 
impression at our Executive Committee, but his presence and comments 
bore some good fruit. The question of engaging professional fund- 
raising counsel occupied much of our discussion in both the Executive 
Committee and full Board meetings during the winter of 1948—49. 
These discussions led rather more quickly than I had expected to the 
authorization to employ the local firm of Donald Hammond Associ- 
ates."* 

"The next step was to reach some kind of satisfactory understanding 
with the Alumnae Gift Building Fund organization which had been 
working quietly for several years, accumulating about $300,000. I 
greatly admired the alumnae for their initiative of proposing and organ- 
izing a fund-raising campaign largely on their own, but it was conceived 
on too small a scale and would tend to muddy the waters for a badly 
needed, much larger campaign. At the same time, we did not wish to 
hurt the feelings of alumnae leaders who had been so helpful to the 
College. Eventually, the Alumnae Gift Building Campaign became part 
of a new two million dollar national campaign, the first phase of which 
would concentrate on the Baltimore corporate public and on Goucher's 
alumnae and friends in the area."'f 

Meanwhile, architectural planning for the new campus was advan- 
cing rapidly. The enlarged and extended Van Meter Hall opened in the 
fall of 1949,^' after which the question became what to build next. 
While a small group on the Executive Committee still favored immedi- 
ate construction of the library. President Kraushaar persuaded the com- 
mittee as a whole that the next objective should be to house the entire 
residential student population on the new campus. This required au- 
thorizing the plans for Residence Hall No. 3, later known as Froelicher 
Hall.i^ 

The design Moore and Hutchins submitted for the future Froelicher 
Hall won the approval of the Architectural Advisory Board, but not that 
of the Faculty Planning Committee chaired by Professor Winslow. The 
minutes of the Executive Committee meeting on April 4, 1949, record 
the latter group's objections to "certain undesirable features": 

1. 100 percent double rooms instead of a predominance of singles 

2. Houses with populations from 58 to 68 rather than from 40 to 50 

3. Absence of common meeting rooms in each house 69 



4- Minimum quarters for residential faculty, reducing the possibility 
of group meetings in the apartments 

5. Absence of "date parlors" 

6. Complete uniformity of rooms, with long corridors, contributing 
to "institutional" appearance of houses'^ 

The Executive Committee asked Dr. Winslow to seek cost estimates for 
rectifying the third and fourth objections; ultimately many of the "un- 
desirable features" were eliminated or improved, but financial stringen- 
cy was the ultimate determinant, and the completed building aroused 
little enthusiasm. 

Construction of Froelicher Hall began in the summer of 1949, and 
the building opened in the fall of 1950, a happy event because it enabled 
the College to close all downtown residence halls and consolidate all 
resident students on the new campus.'"* The trustees then asked Moore 
and Hutchins to draft plans for a more affordable library. 

The Executive Committee had voted, on February 27, 1950, to re- 
constitute the Julia Rogers Fund (whose resources the College had used 
to build Van Meter and Froelicher Halls) by returning to it the first 
available monies from the 1950 campaign. The reconstituted fund, 
equal to the original bequest of $950,000, would then be devoted to 
building the Julia Rogers Library. On March 1 3 the president reported 
to the Executive Committee that Messrs. Moore and Hutchins had 
submitted "a highly satisfactory" preliminary sketch of the library with 
an overall estimated cost of approximately $750,000. 

Revised plans for the library were submitted in the first week of 
November, and a request for bids followed shortly thereafter." Excava- 
tion began on December 21, and on September 8, 1952, President 
Kraushaar announced that the book collection had been moved, and the 
Julia Rogers Library was ready to operate. The net cost of the building 
amounted to $606,707. A very successful Open House to celebrate 
completion of the library took place on December 7;'^ the formal ded- 
ication highlighted a library conference held on April 10 and II, 1953^ 
that drew over three hundred guests. 

The immediate success of the new library is demonstrated by statis- 
tics concerning its use. According to the minutes of the Board of Trust- 
ees' meeting on June 13, 1953, library readers downtown in 1951-52 
numbered 4,185; the following year readers numbered 16,922, a 400 
percent increase.''' 

"We conceived our new Julia Rogers Library," comments Dr. 
Kraushaar, "as much more than a place in which to store and dispense 
books; we equipped it with the slides, photographs, and picture collec- 
tions of the Fine Arts Department, the record collections of the Music 
Department, a language laboratory (in due course), and, as they became 
available, microfiche, microcard, and electronic library aids. 

"Because of a string of lean financial years, the library's book collec- 
tion suffered from substantial gaps."* Once we could glimpse the end of 
the rebuilding and moving process, and once funds for faculty salaries 
and scholarships began to approach decent levels, we began to increase 
the library's budget for the purchase of books and periodicals with a 
view not only to keeping up with new and current publications and the 



inflation, but to filling in some of these gaps. This was slow work, and Completion of 

the progress made is not easy to assess: a merely quantitative determina- "Minimal Campus " 

tion of the size of the collection is not an adequate measure. We were 

assisted in this by the founding (in 1949) and active membership of the 

Friends of the Library, made up primarily of Goucher alumnae and 

friends of the College who contributed funds and book collections and 

furnished a nucleus of dedicated workers for the repair of books." 

Meanwhile, Donald Hammond and his associates were at work plan- 
ning the financial campaign. Mr. Hammond concluded early in his 
projections that the College needed to improve its image in the Bal- 
timore corporate community if it hoped to raise substantial sums from 
that source. This idea inspired him to make a novel proposal: create, 
parallel to the Board of Trustees, a new board without trustee powers or 
responsibilities, which he suggested calling the Board of Overseers. The 
overseers' primary function would be "to assist the College in its finan- 
cial policy" — a euphemistic phrase meaning "contribute generously to 
the College" — and "to examine the plans of the College for its physical 
growth and development." The overseers would also "cooperate with 
the President of the College and the Trustees in formulating, implement- 
ing, and supervising plans whereby a better understanding may be cre- 
ated in the minds of the public with respect to the College's functions, its 
contributions to education and the community, and its needs." Natu- 
rally, the first members of the "public" the College would educate in 
these matters were the overseers themselves. In short, the idea behind 
Mr. Hammond's ingenious proposal was to recruit as many as possible 
of the corporate heads of the Baltimore business community to this new 
board so that they could help solve the College's physical and financial 
problems. The next question was how to recruit them — assuming, of 
course, that the Board of Trustees accepted Mr. Hammond's idea. 

Somewhat to Dr. Kraushaar's surprise, the trustees thought well of 
the notion of a Board of Overseers almost from the beginning,!' g^d Mr. 
Hammond suggested that the best way to attract the corporate leaders 
would be to persuade Mr. Roy White, president of the Baltimore and 
Ohio Railroad, to host a luncheon in a downtown hotel at which Presi- 
dent Kraushaar could speak about Goucher, its problems, and pros- 
pects. Mr. Hammond felt that Mr. White had such prestige in the eco- 
nomic community of Baltimore that very few corporate executives 
would refuse his invitation. Happily, this proved correct. Mr. White 
agreed to host the luncheon, and Dr. Kraushaar spoke so persuasively 
that twenty-eight of the thirty-five invited guests became the charter 
members of Goucher's new Board of Overseers. Dr. Kraushaar notes in 
his reminiscences that "this step was eminently successful over the next 
ten or twelve years in bringing gifts and grants to Goucher." 

President Kraushaar's summary of his first year at Goucher fore- 
shadows subsequent events: "As that utterly welcome summer lull be- 
gan in July, 1 949, we could look back on our first Goucher year as one of 
severe testing. As we were driving north to our rented cottage in South 
Ashfield, Massachusetts, I reviewed the events of that first year and had 
reason to be grateful, it had been for me by far the most difficult and 
trying year of my professional life. My wife and I had come to Goucher 
and Baltimore as relatively young strangers who now had reason to 
believe that we had won a promising measure of initial acceptance and 71 



The Kraushaar confidence from trustees, students, faculty, alumnae, and the Baltimore 

Administration community. We had initiated in that first year a $z million campaign for 

funds, up to that time by far the largest ever in Goucher's history. The 
newly created Board of Overseers promised to gain for the College a 
wider recognition by the corporate and institutional leaders of Bal- 
timore. The alumnae, some of them alienated by the long-delayed move 
to the new campus and the resulting frustrations, were showing signs of 
renewed enthusiasm for, and confidence in, the College. Student morale 
seemed on the rise, and the long-suffering faculty appeared inordinately 
grateful for the small, token increases in salary — the best we could do to 
begin with — that were in their contracts for the next year.-" 



Completing the Once Froelicher Hall had opened,-' two buildings remained whose 

"Minimal Campus ": completion was essential to achieving what President Kraushaar some- 
The Science Building times referred to as the "minimal campus," that is, one capable of 
and the Gymnasium housing approximately 700 residential students and the classrooms, 
laboratories, and basic recreational facilities required for them. These 
two structures, the science building and the gymnasium, particularly the 
former, raised thorny problems whose story, as Dr. Kraushaar says, "is 
told in cryptic style in the minutes of the Executive Committee meetings 
during the summer and fall of 195 1 and the early months of 1952.." Dr. 
Kraushaar's account, by contrast, is quite clear: "Briefly, the problem 
was this. I had gained access to Mr. Samuel Hoffberger, at that time the 
patriarch of that large and philanthropic family. Our discussions led 
eventually to an agreement by Samuel Hoffberger that he would try to 
interest his family in contributing $250,000 toward the $400,000 to 
$500,000 we needed to complete and extend the science building; in 
return for this substantial assistance Goucher would name the science 
building after the Hoffberger family. Mr. Hoffberger was as good as his 
word. After an exchange of long letters the family agreed to underwrite 
the cost of the science building to the extent of $250,000; however, there 
was a problem. The family had already contributed $40,000 or $50,000 
and wished to extend the time period of the rest of the contribution over 
eight or nine years. At the same time, they expected Goucher to be 
responsible for raising the balance of the amount needed to complete 
the building. 

"At first this seemed a fair proposition, even though somewhat re- 
strictive, but then real trouble developed. I had been cultivating the 
Kresge Foundation of Detroit, which at one point sent a representative 
to scout the new campus and prepare a report and recommendation 
regarding Goucher for the directors of the Foundation.-- Originally I 
had planned to secure the balance of approximately $250,000 needed to 
complete the science building from the Kresge Foundation. Their repre- 
sentative sent in a good report on Goucher, and after further discussion 
and several visits to Detroit, just as the grant was about to be signed, Mr. 
Sebastian Kresge, the patriarch of that family, began to demur on the 
Hoffbergers' time frame for the payment of their family grant. On my 
way home by air from Detroit one evening, after a meeting with Mr. 
Kresge, I had visions of both grants going down the drain, and I started 
72 planning at once to see what could be salvaged. There was the (as yet 



unnamed) Lilian Welsh gymnasium, to cost approximately $500,000, Completion of 

which was still unfunded. The best tactic seemed to be to propose to our "Minimal Campus " 

trustees that we accept the Hoffberger grant along with its restricted 
time frame and apply it to the science building; that would then necessi- 
tate raising the balance of approximately $250,000 for that structure as 
a special venture. The Kresge grant, if it could be salvaged, could be 
applied to the cost of the Lilian Welsh gymnasium, although that would 
also require raising a matching fund of $250,000. 

"When I gave my report on the fateful Detroit visit to our Executive 
Committee, they were at first crestfallen, but then a fighting spirit took 
over and the trustees vowed to raise both matching sums within the 
allotted time limits. ^^ The first priority — to keep the Hoffberger grant 
in line — proved not an easy task, but eventually both parties were mol- 
lified to the point of going along with our plan, and the trustees showed 
unprecedented initiative in raising the two matching funds on time.-"* 
The dreary prospect of losing two grants worth $ 5 00,000 was suddenly 
transmuted into a realized fund of $1 million, enough to pay for almost 
all of the construction costs of both the science building and the gym- 
nasium." 

The Executive Committee had authorized the president, on February 
27, 1 9 5 o, to complete plans for the construction of the science building 
(at an estimated cost of $400,000) and a physical education building (at 
an estimated cost of $650,000). 

On April 10 President Kraushaar informed the Executive Committee 
that Moore and Hutchins had revised earlier drawings for a snack bar 
and bookstore to be located in the former air raid shelter in Mary Fisher 
Hall; the committee, in turn, authorized the president to proceed with 
alterations to accommodate, in the basement of Robinson House, a 
central post office and a business office,^^ and to enlarge quarters for the 
infirmary in Mary Fisher Hall. 

On June 19 the Executive Committee requested the president to 
proceed as rapidly as possible with plans for a gymnasium-auditorium. 

"The Hoffberger Science Building," writes Dr. Kraushaar, "was 
opened in the fall of 1953-^ and dedicated the following April in an 
impressive ceremony that pleased the Hoffberger family greatly.^^ The 
Lilian Welsh gymnasium was opened in the fall of 1954 and dedicated 
on November 6. Now at last we had the minimal campus at our 
disposal — classrooms, laboratories, studios, the Library, student resi- 
dences, and physical education and sports facilities. We had closed all of 
our student residences and academic facilities on the downtown cam- 
pus, and most of them had been sold for sums that helped swell the 
funds that had to be raised for the construction of buildings on the new 
campus. 

"But it was indeed a 'minimal campus.' The administration offices 
were still crammed into the wing of Van Meter Hall nearest Mary 
Fisher; the limited number of faculty offices required sharing by two, 
three, and even four colleagues; the music and drama departments were 
without any facilities suitable for teaching, rehearsal or performance; 
the science faculty had only meager facilities for research; we had in our 
new gymnasium an auditorium of sorts, but one that was acoustically 
poor and graceless for such use; there were as yet no studio for the Ji 



The Kraushaar teaching of dance and no swimming pool; student activities were jam- 

Admintstration med into odd places in existing buildings that had not been designed for 

them. 

"All the same, once the College had moved wholly to the new cam- 
pus, it began to have a new image in the minds of Baltimoreans and in 
the eyes of visitors to the campus. The earlier image of a small, Method- 
ist institution struggling to maintain itself in a then deteriorating section 
of Baltimore City gave way rapidly to that of a college that was undergo- 
ing a renaissance, showing signs of renewed vitality and growing appeal. 
The fact that we had come this far inspired a new confidence and a 
feeling that 'we can do it.' As this happened, and as alumnae returned to 
their campus and left it with a renewed pride, and school visitors came 
to the campus to catch up on developments at Goucher, it became plain 
that we had gathered momentum and many allies, and that the total 
completion of the campus and the immediate future of the College was 
assured. 

"Moreover, we were happy to have come as far as we had without 
incurring any large or permanent debt for our rebuilding. The response 
of the students was particularly heartwarming. They had seen the Col- 
lege move, rebuild, and regroup itself under their very eyes, and it was 
for them an exciting and inspiriting period of the College's history. 
Although we all realized that, in comparison with other fully-built and 
well-established colleges, we still lacked much by way of facilities, the 
morale at Goucher was probably never higher than through those years 
of the middle and later fifties with a population of students who had the 
unusual experience of watching their college grow and prosper under 
the special exertions of that time." 



SEVEN 



Completing 

the Campus: 

The Final Stage 



A 



s President Kraushaar con- 
templated his administration's activities during his first four years in 
office, he could take pride in having completed the "minimal campus," 
but he was also aware of how much remained to be done; the days ahead 
were not to be in any sense noticeably easier than those that had gone 
before. Continuing inflation and the cost of building construction made 
funding of each new large structure a difficult task. 

On December 21, 1953, Dr. Kraushaar outlined to the trustee Execu- 
tive Committee four "urgent building needs": 

1. Completion of Robinson-Bennett Dormitory (the future Heubeck 
Hall) 

2. Construction of an administrative building (the future College 
Center), to contain the administrative offices, a large auditorium and 
stage, and perhaps the Music Department 

3. A small chapel 

4. An alumnae house' 

Although the completion of Robinson and Bennett Houses was first 
on the presidential agenda, the trustees delayed further work on the rest 
of Anna Heubeck Hall until 1956 because of the great expense involved. 
They first addressed the fourth item on President Kraushaar's list, an 
alumnae house. - 



The alumnae established an Alumnae House Building Committee in The Alumnae House 

1 9 5 3 to make plans for their new headquarters, ' and in 1 9 54 the trustee 

Executive Committee approved construction of a separate building to 

serve as the alumnae center and engaged Moore and Hutchins to select a 75 



The Kranshaar 
Administration 




Party at Alumnae House terrace, 1950s 



site and make preliminary sketches. Though the architects' plans met 
only minimum specifications, the cost estimate exceeded the allotted 
amount by $31,000; accordingly, the Executive Committee asked Mr. 
Hutchins to prepare new plans. "♦ The Alumnae House was finally com- 
pleted in June 1956, ^ and on August zo the Executive Committee re- 
ceived word that the Board of Directors of the Alumnae Association had 
expressed its appreciation of the "thoughtful and wise counsel" of the 
Trustees in "making possible the pleasant and convenient quarters for 
the Alumnae," and pledged "the continual support of the Association to 
the College."*" With that, one could reasonably assume that any dis- 
affection on the part of the Alumnae Association remaining from the 
Guth era had finally disappeared. 



The Stable, Several other projects were initiated ahead of the first three items on 

the Entrance Road, President Kraushaar's list of urgent needs. For example, when the stable 

and the Gateivay from which the College had been renting horses went out of business in 

1953, the Executive Committee voted to build a new stable and an 
indoor riding ring on the campus.^ The stable, a gift from Mrs. William 
T. Haebler (who later gave the College the president's house and whose 
daughters built the chapel), was offered for bids in 1956,^ but the plan 
for the indoor riding ring was abandoned. On October Z9, 196Z, how- 
ever, the Executive Committee authorized the construction of a groom's 
house next to the stable at a cost of $8,300, the expense to be paid from 
income derived from the riding fee. 

Where to put the main entrance road and how to mark it with an 
appropriate gateway occupied the Board of Trustees off and on during 
the decade between 1953 and 1963. On June zz, 1953, the Executive 
Committee voted to proceed with a new gateway and an entrance road 
opposite Southerly Road. Three years later, on February 6, 1956, the 
committee decided that the entrance should be opposite Locustvale 
j6 Road (the present location) and accepted a construction bid of approxi- 



mately $46,000. At the meeting of the Executive Committee on January The Final Stage 

28, 1957, Chairman Davis suggested that the new gateway, Hke the 
earher one, be named for Dr. Guth. A few months later Mr. Hideo 
Sasaki began his entranceway design to honor Goucher's fourth presi- 
dent,'^ but when the estimated cost turned out to be $28,485, the Execu- 
tive Committee decided, on November 25, to defer its construction. The 
cost of this delay was considerable; by 1963 the estimated expense for 
the same gateway had risen to $35,000. Fortunately, Mr. Clarence Ei- 
derkin offered to defray the expense, and on September 23, 1963, Presi- 
dent Kraushaar informed the Executive Committee that the design of 
the gateway was complete and that construction would begin imme- 
diately. 

Because there is no memorial tablet, most members of the Goucher 
community — not to mention visitors — do not know that the ashes of 
both President and Mrs. Guth are immured in the gateway. Mrs. Guth 
died on December 6, 1959, and the next day President Kraushaar re- 
ported to the Executive Committee her request that her remains and 
those of Dr. Guth (which had been held in mausoleum space in Druid 
Ridge Cemetery at the College's expense since his death) be cremated 
and sealed into the masonry of the new Guth memorial gateway. 



In 1954, when the College still had no space to use as a theater, the 
Executive Committee voted, on President Kraushaar's recommenda- 
tion, to convert the Barn — a building that had originally served as a 
garage for buses — into a temporary auditorium and a small theater. "^ 
President Kraushaar informed the committee on September i 3 that the 
necessary alterations were underway at an estimated cost of $10,000 
and that the finished building would be able to seat approximately 350 
people. The Barn, then two-thirds completed, could already be used; the 
gymnasium, also ready for use, would be dedicated on Sports Day, 
November 6, 1954. Though not designed for the purpose, the gym- 
nasium provided enough space to seat an audience of over a thousand 
and could serve for major events, such as lectures likely to draw a large 
group or indoor commencement exercises on rainy days. The much 
smaller Barn, in the words of Dr. Kraushaar, "had about it an intimacy 
that gave one the feeling of being very close to the lecturer or the per- 
formers." Regrettably, the building, fondly viewed by many members of 
the Goucher community, was destroyed by fire in the early morning of 
May 20, 1961.11 By that time the completion of the new College Center 
was imminent, so the absence of adequate facilities for theater perfor- 
mances was relatively short-lived. 



The time had now come to make plans for completing Heubeck Hall. Anna Heubeck Hall 

Because the estimated cost of the project vastly exceeded the amount 

allocated, only a campaign could raise the needed funds. Nevertheless, 

the Executive Committee decided to have Moore and Hutchins prepare 

preliminary drawings, with remuneration based on consultants' and 

draftsmen's time.'- A little over a year later, the Executive Committee 

voted to proceed with construction of South House and the central 

portion of the hall, leaving East House to be added later. The committee 7 



The Kraushaar 
Administration 




Students and callers, Heubeck Hall, 1940s 



noted that this would permit "a more gradual and manageable increase 
in the size of the student body."'^ On October 29, 1956, the Executive 
Committeeinitiatedtheplanningof East House, and on May 6, 1957, it 
approved the name Anna Heubeck Hall in honor of Anna Heubeck 
Knipp, president of the first graduating class (189Z), for many years a 
trustee, and the co-author of the first published history of Goucher 
College. At the same meeting the committee named South House for 
Elmore B. Jeffery, a former president of the Board of Trustees; and East 
House for James N. Gamble, the first lay president of the Board of 
Trustees. This action completed the naming of all residence halls and 
houses already built or under construction. 

On June 15, 1957, President Kraushaar informed the Board of Trus- 
tees that Heubeck Hall — with the exception of Gamble House, for 
which bids were still coming in — would be ready for fall occupancy. The 
dedication took place on October 30. By early September 1958 Gamble 



House, the final unit of Heubeck Hall, was completed.''' At last the 
three residence halls were finished and named, and only the last hall, 
named to honor former Dean and Professor of history Dorothy Stimson, 
remained to be built. 



The Final Stage 



With the first three dormitories occupied or under construction, a resi- The President's House 
dence for the president became a priority. Moore and Hutchins's origi- 
nal plans had been rejected by the Architectural Advisory Board in the 
spring of 1955; the following October the advisory board recom- 
mended to the Board of Trustees that it select another architect.'^ The 
chosen group, Rogers, Taliaferro and Lamb of Annapolis, later an- 
nounced that they anticipated completion during the summer of 
1957.16 

On March iz, 1956, President Kraushaar told the Executive Com- 
mittee that Mrs. William T. Haebler, who had succeeded her late hus- 
band on the Board of Trustees and had given the College its stable, had 
contributed $10,000 toward the cost of the president's house; in June, 
he further informed the committee that Mrs. Haebler, in consultation 
with her daughters, had expressed her wish to defray the entire cost of 
the house, a project in which her late husband had been deeply inter- 
ested. '^ 

The Executive Committee authorized working drawings on April 23 
at a total cost of $113,800, including landscaping and furnishings; but 
before it could be occupied, President Kraushaar nearly found himself 
with no house at all. Fewer withdrawals than had been expected forced 
the College, in the fall of 1956, to face the problem of lodging thirteen 
students for whom there was no dormitory space. President Kraushaar 
volunteered to move with Mrs. Kraushaar into a rented apartment so 
that the displaced students could live in the temporary president's house 
at 206 East Joppa Road. The Executive Committee expressed its deep 
appreciation of this offer but declined because it would cause too great 
an inconvenience. ' ^ The solution turned out to be the use of guest rooms 
on campus, the commons room in Mary Fisher Hall, and other available 
space as temporary quarters for the thirteen students.'^ 

Finally, later than originally expected. President and Mrs. Kraushaar 
moved into their new quarters on November 16,1957.-° The temporary 
house was sold in 1963 for $104,306.77; it had originally cost 
$45,155.22. 



The summer of 1956 saw further attention given to physical education 
facilities on the campus. The Executive Committee authorized three 
new tennis courts on June 18, 1856, at a total cost of $7,800, and 
approved the expenditure of approximately $4,000 to resurface three 
existing courts. At the same meeting the committee reviewed the Fine 
Arts Department's urgent need for additional studio and workshop 
space, as well as the housing inadequacies of the Physical Plant Depart- 
ment. The committee decided to make the service building available to 
the Fine Arts Department for studio work by constructing immediately 
the first part of a new service compound at a cost of $75,000 to 



The End of 
Phase Two of 
Building the Campus 



The Kraushaar $100,000. On January 2.8, 1957, the Executive Committee approved 

Administration the location and on March 25 authorized an immediate start on con- 

struction at an estimated maximum cost of $130,930. 

Mr. Sasaki presented to the Executive Committee on October 7 a 
revised master plan for the Towson campus, including sites for the 
future auditorium, the administration building, the chapel, a proposed 
student activities building, and a fourth residence hall.-' The submis- 
sion of this new master plan constituted a symbolic end to the second 
phase of construction in the Kraushaar era. But much remained to be 
built before President Kraushaar left to the College the fully developed 
campus that is the most visible legacy of his administration. 



The Language One of the least obvious landmarks of the final phase of campus 

Laboratory construction — except, perhaps, to generations of students who have 

spent hours at hard labor in it — is the language laboratory. It first came 
to the attention of the Executive Committee on June 23, 1958, when 
President Kraushaar noted that certain alumnae, especially the class of 
1903, were promoting plans for a language laboratory in honor of the 
professor of French whom they fondly remembered as "Sheffie." The 
committee duly authorized the president to name the future laboratory 
for Dr. Joseph S. Shefloe (1890-1919). On November 17 the president 
told the committee that plans for the language laboratory's equipment 
and installation were under way; the laboratory would be housed tem- 
porarily in Mary Fisher Hall, but the intention was to move it later to a 
permanent location in the College Center or Van Meter Hall. At the 
same meeting Dean Elizabeth Geen remarked that because of the labo- 
ratory, the addition of Russian to the curriculum had become a distinct 
possibility. Indeed, on March 9, 1959, President Kraushaar announced 
to the Executive Committee a joint program with the Johns Hopkins 
University in Russian language and literature.-- By February 1959 fif- 
teen language laboratory stations had been installed temporarily in the 
basement of Mary Fisher Hall at a cost of approximately $12,000." 



The College Center At its meeting on December 15, 1958, the Executive Committee as- 

signed to the College Center priority over all other buildings and asked 
President Kraushaar to confer with the Architectural Advisory Board 
concerning the selection of an architect. Six months later the Faculty 
Planning Committee had completed its overall plans for the College 
Center.-'* 

Some years earlier the Board of Trustees had invited Mr. Pietro Bel- 
luschi of Boston to serve on the Architectural Advisory Board.-^ When 
in 1959 the Board of Trustees offered Mr. Belluschi the commission to 
design the College Center, he felt unable to accept because of his posi- 
tion. -^ After tentatively rejecting three other architects, the Executive 
Committee solved the dilemma by suggesting to Mr. Belluschi that he 
resign from the advisory board and accept the College Center commis- 
sion — which he did. 2'' 

On December 7 the Executive Committee received with enthusiasm 

Mr. Belluschi's schematic plans for the College Center, and on February 

80 I, i960, the committee approved a budget of $1,892,000 for construe- 



tion. Preliminary plans for the center by Belluschi and by the Annapolis 
firm of Rogers, Taliaferro and Lamb (the associated architects Belluschi 
had chosen to do the drafting of plans) were approved on May 23; on 
June 1 1 President Kraushaar informed the full board that the architects 
were proceeding with the working drawings. With construction pro- 
ceeding essentially on schedule, the Executive Committee, on December 
10, 1962, received advanced information on the program of special 
events planned in connection with the official opening of the College 
Center, scheduled for January 13, 1963. 

At the meeting of the Board of Trustees on June 15, 1963, Judge 
Thomsen announced an action taken earlier by the Executive Commit- 
tee but not recorded in its minutes: the committee had voted unan- 
imously to name the new auditorium the Kraushaar Auditorium. A 
concert held on January 12, 1964, provided the occasion for the formal 
announcement that the auditorium had been named for President 
Kraushaar.-^ 

Dr. Kraushaar informed the Board of Trustees on October 12, 1963, 
that the College Center had received the First Honor Award for architec- 
tural excellence from the Baltimore Association of Commerce and the 
Baltimore Chapter of the American Institute of Architects.-'' 



The Final Stage 



In 1959 President Kraushaar called to the Executive Committee's atten- 
tion two new requirements for the science building: an extension needed 
to house radioisotopes and a large lecture-demonstration room. The 
latter was needed immediately because a single science course had en- 
rolled 160 students for the following year, more than could be accom- 
modated in any one room on campus. According to President 
Kraushaar, no funds were available, although the National Institutes of 
Health (NIH) might help with a grant of $200,000 if the College 
matched it. The estimated cost of the new wing, including the lecture 
hall, was $400,000.^° 

On May 22, 1961, the Executive Committee authorized the presi- 
dent to engage an architect to design the extension, and on September 
24, 1962, the committee approved preliminary plans by Moore and 
Hutchins. Increasing by approximately 40 percent the available space 
for the teaching of the natural sciences, this addition included a 1 50-seat 
lecture-demonstration hall, four thousand square feet of research space, 
a greenhouse for teaching and research, a classroom for fifty students, 
and a physical chemistry laboratory with adjoining instrument and 
balance rooms. With $145,000 already in hand from various grants 
toward the estimated $620,000 price tag, the committee authorized the 
architects to proceed with working drawings. A year and a half later the 
College received an NIH grant of $102,789 to help finance health- 
related research facilities in the science building extension.'' Although 
the addition was completed by early 1965, the lecture-demonstration 
hall had to be postponed because of financial stringency.'- 



Extension of the 
Science Building 



On March 16, 1959, the Executive Committee discussed the possibility The Chapel 
of raising, as part of the 75th Anniversary Campaign, an estimated 
$400,000 to construct a college chapel. The committee consulted Mr. 



The Kraushaar Sasaki about the site and the Faculty Planning Committee worked with 

Administration Chaplain Guthrie Speers on a program of specifications for the building. 

A month later President Kraushaar informed the Executive Committee 

that Marian Gift Lang, 'zo, had pledged $35,000 for a chapel pipe 

organ to be named for her late husband, George F. Lang.'^ 

Soon after. President Kraushaar announced that anonymous donors 
had pledged $300,000 for the chapel, provided that the College 
matched their gift with $100,000; other conditions included the time of 
completion and the choice of architects. The Executive Committee au- 
thorized the president to deal directly with the donors' agent concerning 
the selection of the architect. ^"^ The donors, in concert with Mr. Bel- 
luschi and Dr. Kraushaar, approved Moore and Hutchins as architects'^ 
and eventually accepted their second design and schematic plan.^* The 
ground-breaking ceremony took place on December 21, 1961, and in 
the spring of 1963, the Haebler Memorial Chapel, named for Mr. and 
Mrs. William T. Haebler, former trustees, was completed at a cost of 
$454,305, of which $340,000 had been donated by the three Haebler 
daughters. The first service was conducted on March 3, and the formal 
dedication followed on April 28. The chapel organ was dedicated on 
November 15, 1964.^'' 



Dorothy Stimson Hall In the fall of 1959 President Kraushaar notified the Executive Commit- 
tee that construction of Residence Hall No. 4 required immediate atten- 
tion. This dormitory would accommodate approximately 250 students 
and, in a separate wing, a new infirmary. Moving the present infirmary's 
inadequate quarters to the more spacious wing of the new residence hall 
would provide space for additional students in Bacon House, and the 
new health facility could be amortized by instituting a separate student 
health fee. Dr. Kraushaar further recommended that the new dormitory 
be built in several stages to permit a gradual increase in the size of the 
student body.'** 

The firm of Wilson and Christie of Towson was selected to design the 
new hall, which would consist of four houses, a health center,'*^ and a 
central area; construction would go forward in stages from 1962 to 
1965, when the size of the student body would increase gradually to one 
thousand.'"' The Executive Committee named the first house of Resi- 
dence Hall No. 4 Hester Wagner House in honor of Hester Corner 
Wagner, a former trustee and longtime secretary of the Executive Com- 
mittee, who was also a former president of the Alumnae Association. •♦' 
On January 30, 1961, the committee approved a design for stage one of 
the new hall, including Wagner House and a detached portion of the 
hall's administrative area. Expected to cost approximately $423,320, 
stage one was to be ready for occupancy in January 1962.''- 

In the fall of 1961 the Executive Committee named Residence Hall 
No. 4 Dorothy Stimson Hall and later scheduled the stone laying date 
for April 9, i962.'»' The committee named the second house of Stimson 
in honor of Miss Frances R. Conner, '02, student counselor, then first 
dean of students (1922-48),'*'' and the third for Grace T. Lewis, '13, 
dean of the A. B. Davis High School in Mount Vernon, New York, until 
her retirement in the spring of 1962; she had given Goucher $3 5,000 for 
81 dormitory construction.'*'' 



The Executive Committee awarded a contract for stage four of Stim- The Final Stage 

son Hail on August i8, 1964. The fourth house, named for Professor 
Clinton Ivan Winslow (political science, 1923-62), was completed in 
the summer of 1965, and work went forward on the final stage of the 
hall, whose fifth house, named for former registrar Carrie Mae Probst, 
'04, opened in i966.-*6 

Professor Winslow received a $9,500 grant in early i960 from the 
Educational Facilities Laboratories, a branch of the Ford Foundation's 
Fund for Adult Education, that provided him with released time to 
engage consultants and to oversee the planning of all buildings in the 
program stage.''' In 1962 the College awarded him the John Franklin 
Goucher Medal, which had been established by the Executive Commit- 
tee in i960 to recognize distinguished service to the College. The medal 
was regarded as an accolade similar to that of an honorary degree.'*^ 



A number of recreational and health facilities were added to the campus Finishing Touches 
between i960 and 1962. The first was a third hockey field, made neces- 
sary because the College had agreed to host, in the summer of 1963, the 
Conference of the International Federation of Women's Hockey Asso- 
ciations. The Executive Committee authorized the estimated cost of 
$9,223 on January 18, i960, to be secured through a special gift. 

A second project began on May 22, 1961, when the Executive Com- 
mittee authorized the engaging of an architect to design a swimming 
pool. By October 24, 1964, plans proposed by the firm of Cochran, 
Stephenson and Wing"*^ were well advanced for an indoor-outdoor pool 
to be built at a probable cost of $350,000 to $400,000.^0 

The completion of the pool became the symbol of a major triumph in 
this final period of construction in the Kraushaar era. Providing ade- 
quate physical resources for departments on the new campus was a 
problem that required attention at the beginning of the Kraushaar ad- 
ministration. While many academic departments were understaffed and 
others undoubtedly suffered from lack of adequate equipment. Physical 
Education was probably the only one with no space of its own to con- 
duct its program. "Looking back," Dr. Kraushaar comments, "it seems 
almost incredible that in 1948 the College maintained a Department of 
Physical Education without facilities of any kind in which to operate.^' 
The fact that it functioned at all is a tribute to its entire staff, but 
especially to its chairman, Eline von Borries, who for years conducted 
the departmental activities with only those materials or locations that 
she could beg, borrow, or steal from other departments of the College or 
neighboring institutions. By exhibiting enormous patience and main- 
taining total integrity, she ran a Department of Physical Education un- 
der the most adverse circumstances imaginable.'^ 

"In the fall of 1967, after I had retired from my position at Goucher, 
Eline Von Borries and I both jumped into the new swimming pool fully 
clothed as a token of our emphatic appreciation of the long road we had 
traveled together.-''-'' The members of the audience that evening were 
undoubtedly shocked by our breach of decorum, but they didn't know 
what Eline von Borries and I knew, what only a few members of the 
audience could appreciate: that we had come from zero facilities to a 
gymnasium, dance studio, swimming pool, hockey fields, tennis courts. 



and a riding stable. Goucher now offered as complete a program in 
physical education as any college at that time." 

We have already noted that the health center, originally planned as 
part of Stimson Hall, was finally constructed on its present site between 
Stimson and Froelicher Halls, the ground-breaking taking place on Jan- 
uary 4, 1962. Once occupied, it freed space for thirteen additional 
residents in Bacon House of Mary Fisher Hall.^'' 

Meanwhile, Moore and Hutchins were planning the alterations in 
Van Meter Hall which the moving of administrative offices to the Col- 
lege Center made possible; the estimated cost for this project was 
$71,333. The alterations ultimately included, among other facilities, 
thirty additional faculty offices, a large classroom, and a seminar 
room.^'' 

The Executive Committee awarded a contract on April z6, 1965, for 
an annex to the plant laboratory for use by the Psychology Department, 
at an estimated cost of $39,440.^^ 

On January Z4, 1966, the Executive Committee asked Moore and 
Hutchins for a contractual proposal for designing an addition to the 
Julia Rogers Library, and on April 18 the committee authorized the 
architects to proceed with final working drawings. A State Bond Bill for 
$297,500 would cover part of the estimated $897,000 needed for this 
project; the College was applying for a Federal Educational Facilities 
grant of $299,000; $6^,000 on hand left $237,000 to be raised.^-' The 
Executive Committee decided, on December 5, to name the new library 
wing for David Allan Robertson, who had died on July 15, 1961. 

Finally, just before President Kraushaar's retirement, the Executive 
Committee chose to name the lecture-demonstration hall to be added to 
the science building the Louise Kelley Lecture Hall in honor of Dr. 
Louise Kelley ( 1 920-59), who had served for many years as chairman of 
the Chemistry Department and for two years as acting dean. With this 
decision the committee brought to an end the extraordinary building 
program that spanned President Kraushaar's administration from 1948 
to 1967. 



EIGHT 



Gaucher' s 

Remarkable 

Real Estate 

Transactions 



T 

.A. he 



he Goucher Board of Trustees 
has the rare distinction of having built two planned campuses, the first 
beginning in the mid-i88os, the second in the late 1930s. As a conse- 
quence of building the campus in Towson, the trustees and administra- 
tion found themselves engaged in real estate transactions on a large 
scale. First came the need to dispose of College property in the city; then 
followed the gradual sale of excess land in Towson. Because not all the 
county acreage was required for the College's purposes, the sale of some 
of it represented a valuable source of income; the College relinquished 
other pieces of land because the State Roads Commission had plans that 
involved encroachment on some of the College's 4Z1 acres. Though they 
overlapped somewhat in time, the sale of Goucher's downtown and 
county holdings will be treated separately. 



On August 26, 1978, the Old Goucher College Historic District was 
officially entered on the National Register of Historic Places. Of the 
twenty-six buildings that were once part of the downtown campus, 
twenty-three were still standing in 1978, and of these, the eighteen 
shown in table 3 are listed on the National Register. 

The five surviving Goucher buildings not placed on the register were 
the Power House and Laundry located at 2303 North Howard Street; 
the Headquarters for Publications and Dramatics, situated north of 
Ford Hall at 2323 Maryland Avenue; and three dormitories: Sess- 
rymner Hall, 2216-18 North Charles Street; Gimle Hall, 2217-27 
North Charles Street; and Hunnar Hall, 2305 St. Paul Street. 

Describing the downtown property. Dr. Kraushaar notes that 
Goucher had never enjoyed a true campus while located in the city. 
Buildings were here and there, a few in clusters, but for the most part 



Completion of the 
Sale of Downtown 
Property 



The Kraushaar 
Administration 



Table 3 Goucher Buildings on National Regii 



Addri 



Goucher Name 



1978 Owner 



2300 Maryland Ave. 
101 W. 24th St. 
2317-23 Maryland Ave. 
2307 Maryland Ave. 

2303 Maryland Ave. 

2301 Maryland Ave. 

2300 N. Charles St. 
2327 N. Charles St. 
One East 24th St. 

2301 N. Charles St. 

2229 N. Charles St. 
16 E. 23rd St. 
2401 St. Paul St. 
2313 St. Paul St. 
2220 St. Paul St. 
2233 St. Paul St. 

2304 N. Calvert St. 
2234-36 N. Charles St. 



Fensal Hail 
Vingolf Hall 
Ford Hall 
Dunnock Hall 
Trudheim Hall 
Folkvang Hall and City 

Girls' Center 
Glitner Hall 
Mardal Hall 
Alumnae Lodge 
Foster House 

President's House 
Bennett Hall & Annex 
Catherine Hooper Hall 
Dr. Goucher's House 
Goucher Hall 
Midgard Hall 
Alfheim Hall 
Vanaheim Hall 



U.S. Government 
U.S. Government 
Lewis Investment Co. 
Harry B. Cook Co. 
Harry B. Cook Co. 
Harry B. Cook Co. 

City of Baltimore 
Private residence 
Harry B. Cook Co. 
Building Congress of Bal- 
timore 
Milford A. Niies et al. 
State of Maryland 
Order of the Eastern Star 
"2313St. PaulSt. Ltd." 
American Red Cross 
Arbee, Inc. 
Cit\' of Baltimore 
Private residence 



Source: Goucher College Archives. 



separate pieces of real estate scattered among residences and business 
firms over which the College had no control. The area bordered by 
Maryland Avenue on the west, Twenty-second Street on the south, 
Calvert Street on the east, and Twenty-fourth Street on the north encom- 
passed most of Goucher's downtown buildings, which had been erected 
between i886 and 1920. By 1948 that area was deteriorating rapidly. 
Several major buildings had already been sold; the sale of others was 
under negotiation. The fate of the remaining structures depended on the 
availability of new buildings on the Towson campus. Table 4 shows the 
sequence of sales of Goucher buildings in Baltimore, with their pur- 
chasers and prices. 







Goucher College, 1930 



Table 4 


Sale of Goucher Buildings in Baltimore 




Remarkable Real 


Building{s) 


Sale 


Purchaser 


Price 


Estate Transactions 


Foster House 


8/29/41 


Building Congress of Bal- 


$ 7,250 




Vanaheim Hall 


5/18/42 


Dr. Leo Schlenger 


9,500 




Midgard Hall 


5/23/42 


Federal Construction 
Corp. 


7,500 




Gimle Hall Annex 


7/1/42 


H. Earle Rose 


5,000 




Ford Hall 


7/9/42 


Federal Construction 
Corp. 


14,000 




Folkvang Hail, Trudheim 


8/26/42 


Kenneth Milford Cohen 


16,000 




Hall, Trudheim Hall 










Annex, Dunnock Hall 










Hunnar Hall 


1/27/43 


Mrs. Dora MacKane 


16,000 




Mardal Hall 


8/2/44 


Foster T. Fenton 


30,000 




Bennett Hall 


2/11/45 


State of Maryland 


50,000 




Bennett Hall Annex 


2/12/45 


State of Maryland 


25,000 




Fensal and Vingolf Halls 


4/29/46 


U.S. War Department 


134,000 




Gimle Hall 


5/5/50 


Harry Merowitz 


60,000 




President's House 


5/5/50 


Harry Merowitz 


40,000 




Sessrymner Hall 


5/5/50 


Harry Merowitz 


35,000 




Power House 


9/6/50 


Record Realty Co. 


20,000 




Goucher Hall 


11/15/50 


American Red Cross 


170,000 




Alumnae Lodge 


12/14/50 


Harry B. Cook, Co. 


35,000 




Alfheim House 


2/25/52 


City of Baltimore 


132,000 




Goucher House 


4/30/52 


United Insurance Co. 


120,000 




Catherme Hooper Hall 


6/10/53 


Order of the Eastern Star 


175,000 




Glitner Hall and Annex 


11/10/53 


City of Baltimore 


175,000 




Total 






$1,256,250 





Source: Goucher College Archives. 



One transaction that Dr. Kraushaar handled from start to finish was 
the sale of Goucher House, designed by the famous New York architec- 
tural firm of McKim, Mead and White, a truly historic building in the 
life of both Goucher and Baltimore. Situated on St. Paul Street midway 
between Twenty-third and Twenty-fourth Streets, this elegant, three- 
storied brownstone with full basement had been built and paid for by 
Dr. John Franklin Goucher. "A dwelling fondly remembered by the 
alumnae of the early years," writes Dr. Kraushaar, "when 1 arrived in 
1948 it was in use as a student residence. No cost had been spared on 
this house, which still contains some of the most elegant woodwork to 
be found in this city, where fine craftsmanship and tasteful appoint- 
ments were long a tradition.' 

The sale of Goucher House caused President Kraushaar to wonder 
whether the College, in light of its somewhat haphazard disposal of 
downtown real estate, had realized the full potential value of the proper- 
ty. Each building was sold as it became available and as offers came in, 
but there was no trustee committee to supervise and coordinate these 
transactions, undertaken on what amounted to an ad hoc basis. As a 
result, while there were some pleasant surprises at the revenues from the 
sales, there were also some disappointments. The sale of Goucher 
House finally led to the creation of a Land Development Committee, 
chaired by Mr. H. Vernon Eney, trustee and College counsel. 



When Moore and Hutchins drew up the master plan of the campus that 
won the architectural competition in 1938, the surroundings of the 
College were mostly open or undeveloped. When Hideo Sasaki pre- 
sented his revised plan in 1958, however, that situation had drastically 
changed. As Sasaki wrote in the "Objectives and Summary of the Plan" 
that accompanied his revised version: 

In the period after [1938], through the pressure of the expanding urban- 
ization of Metropolitan Baltimore, the Towson area received more than a 
dramatic share of growth. Goucher College is now completely surrounded by 
developed land. With this expansion of residential development has come the 
ancillary uses of commercial centers and roadways. To the south, and lying 
upon a part of the former "green acres" of the Goucher campus, are some of 
the most highly valued commercial developments of Baltimore County. To 
the west and the north are located Baltimore County's newest traffic arteries, 
and to the south and east are subdivisions of most recent construction. 

It is indeed a temptation to devote a portion of the seemingly large 
Goucher property to uses other than those for college purposes, especially to 
the south. Conversely, it is indeed tempting for the County to take the 
College property for highway and other such uses instead of acquiring al- 
ready developed or held-for-development (taxable) lands about the campus. - 

Though not directly concerned with most of the real estate negotia- 
tions downtown, President Kraushaar did become involved in parallel 
activities in the county suggested by Mr. Sasaki. While the downtown 
properties were being sold, a series of developments affecting the new 
campus tract in Towson demanded attention. By the early 1950s the 
College's involvement in negotiations for the course of the new beltway 
contributed to its rerouting across the northern border of the campus, 
thereby avoiding an earlier threat that it might cut the campus in half. To 
the south the Hutzler contract for the erection of a complete shopping 
center presented problems that involved several years of negotiations. 
Before these matters had been settled and before a new contract for 
building the shopping center had been signed in the late 195CS, the 
College engaged in negotiations over the strip of land which the State 
planned for Goucher Boulevard, and soon after, the question of widen- 
ing Dulaney Valley Road arose, which would also take some of 
Goucher's property. Furthermore, before the Campus Hills housing de- 
velopment was built on the eastern flank of the campus, the College 
conducted negotiations for an exchange of land with the Campus Hills 
developers. From 1950 on, there were few respites from activities con- 
cerning the development of parts of the campus that could help ease the 
College's serious financial problems. 



The Towson Plaza Soon after the end of the Second World War, Vice President Clark Hobbs 

Shopping Center reported from time to time to the Executive Committee and the full 

board about his conferences concerning possible commercial develop- 

88 ment of the Goucher property immediately adjacent to Joppa Road. 



Even at that time the increasing population of Towson suggested that 
real estate values would rise and that Goucher's 4Z1 acres would some- 
day be an important asset to the College. Nonetheless, it took time and 
lengthy negotiations to begin to capitalize on Goucher's unneeded land. 

The portion of the College's disposable acreage that afforded the 
greatest opportunity for generating a significant annual revenue was the 
tract to the east of Dulaney Valley Road just north of Joppa Road. 
Goucher's objective was to make this the site of a large shopping center 
from which the College would derive a steady income as part of the 
"overages" from sales of the shopping center merchants. Many of the 
plans for the College's financial future depended on the use of some of its 
valuable real estate. The first step to this end was a contract with the 
Hutzler Company involving the outright sale of a small piece of College 
land lying immediately south of Joppa Road on Dulaney Valley Road, 
the site of an old unused inn. Included in the contract was the lease of a 
large tract lying north of Joppa alongside Dulaney Valley Road, a small 
section of which, adjacent to Joppa Road, was to be used as the Hutzler 
parking lot. The larger part of the tract — the portion of primary interest 
to the College — was to be the site of the shopping center that the 
Hutzlers agreed to develop and which Goucher counted on as a major 
source of future income. 

The Hutzlers proceeded promptly to build their Towson store in the 
early 1950s, but they made no move to take the next step, the develop- 
ment of the shopping center. Although Mr. (later Judge) Roszel 
Thomsen, the trustee and lawyer who represented the College in the 
Hutzler transactions, conferred regularly with the Hutzler representa- 
tives, nothing but mild encouragement ensued. The Hutzlers, once their 
own store had been built, lost interest in developing the rest of the land 
that had been leased to them. After several years passed, the College 
terminated the lease, making the tract available to another firm. This 
lease-breaking process, that began in 1955 and concluded in 1956, was 
negotiated by Mr. H. Vernon Eney, a trustee and member of the legal 
firm of Venable, Baetjer and Howard. As chairman of the Land Develop- 
ment Committee, which also included Messrs. John Luetkemeyer, John 
Motz, and Francis Davis, Mr. Eney, a consummate lawyer, concluded 
the negotiations so that Goucher could lease this valuable property to a 
developer. In due course, the DeChiaro Company, which had previously 
developed Campus Hills, signed a lease, and by the late 1950s a thriving 
shopping center allowed the College to realize the income potential of 
some of its land.^ 



Remarkable Real 
Estate Transactions 



Meanwhile, as Towson's population grew, new roadways were pro- 
posed. The major project was the Baltimore beltway; the trustees had 
been alerted soon after the Second World War that an interstate road 
was planned that might require taking some Goucher land. Fortunately, 
the basic plan of the campus had established the axis of Mary Fisher 
Hall as the northern border of all but the athletic and recreational 
facilities; still, the College tried to influence the State Road Commission 
to direct the beltway's course as far north as possible to reduce its impact 
on the campus. On September 21, 1953, President Kraushaar informed 



The Baltimore 
Belttvay 



89 



The Kraushaar the Executive Committee that the Maryland State Roads Commission 

Administration engineers had agreed to place the East- West Highway near the northern 

boundary of the campus, though the College would still lose a few 
acres.'* 

It was clear that the beltway would open the northern part of Bal- 
timore County and make the Goucher campus far more accessible. 
While the College emerged well compensated from its negotiations with 
the highway commission, it lost, in the process, the use of Donnybrook, 
the glen through which the stream of the same name runs and which had 
served as a site for picnics and other recreational activities; the noise 
generated by traffic on the beltway, only a few feet away, made this 
formerly bucolic spot virtually unusable for such purposes. The loss 
also involved the land taken for the broad right-of-way of the beltway 
itself and a crescent-shaped tract that the freeway severed from the 
northern border. As it happened, the loss of the crescent was not too 
damaging since the College was able to interest the Towson Methodist 
congregation in building a new church on that site.' 



The Peabody Institute An open tract of land, only pardy utilized, is a natural temptation to 
Branch institutions or agencies that might develop plans for its future. At one 

time county authorities apparently conceived the idea of constructing a 
roadway through the southern part of the campus at about the point 
where the Peabody Institute branch building now stands. When the 
Institute approached the College about the possibility of leasing land to 
erect a Towson instruction center, the trustees decided that the presence 
of some kind of structure in that general location was highly desirable; 
accordingly they leased a small piece of land for the Peabody building 
and the connection to Dulaney Valley Road.* 



Dulaney Valley Road, Other projects to which the Executive Committee gave close attention 
Goucher Boulevard, were the widening of Dulaney Valley Road to four lanes with a median 
and Campus Hills divider, which would take approximately a sixty-foot-wide strip of land 

from the western border of the campus, and the extension of Fairmount 
Avenue to constitute the present Goucher Boulevard.^ The former pre- 
sented no serious problems for the College, and a simple, straightfor- 
ward contract concluded the negotiations. Few difficulties arose in 
reaching an agreement with the county on the course of the future 
Goucher Boulevard. By that time the College had definite plans for the 
commercial development of the adjacent tract, and it was clear that the 
construction of a roadway was needed to provide ready access to the 
proposed shopping center. 

On February z8, 1955, the Executive Committee ratified an ex- 
change of approximately twenty-five acres of land on the southern 
border of the campus in return for approximately thirty-one acres on the 
eastern boundary with Mr. Ralph DeChiaro. A Page fence was to be 
built, at Mr. DeChiaro's expense, on the east and south where the 
College property met the proposed housing development now known as 
go Campus Hills. 



Remarkable Real 
Estate Transactions 



These roadway and commercial developments around the perimeter of 
the campus called for various adjustments on the campus itself. With 
specifications for the widening of Dulaney Valley Road in hand in 1954, 
the College could plan its new entrance approaching the campus from 
the south. 8 

As the number of visitors to the campus increased during the fifties, 
the College gave closer attention to the adequacy of roads, parking lots, 
lighting, and general security. An increase in the capacity of electrical 
input was a need met by the installation of a large electrical substation 
and transformers. Enlarged water and sewer connections followed. 

What the College did not address were some of the construction 
possibilities proposed in the 1958 master plan by Mr. Hideo Sasaki. 
While most new buildings were, in fact, placed close to the locations Mr. 
Sasaki suggested, many of his ideas for other structures have never 
materialized, at least not as separate entities. These include a fine arts 
building placed in a cluster with the administration wing and the au- 
ditorium, the entire group of buildings to be situated slightly southwest 
of the present location of the College Center; a student center he pro- 
posed between the chapel and Mary Fisher Hall, but on the opposite 
side of the footpath connecting them; a large tract running southwest 
from the future Stimson Hall to be reserved for future dormitory expan- 
sion; and, south of that, close to Goucher Boulevard, a substantial area 
set aside for future faculty housing. Mr. Sasaki also foresaw an expan- 
sion of the library to the north, an extension to the plant laboratory, a 
small transverse addition to the southern end of Van Meter Hall, an 
addition to the north end of Lilian Welsh Gymnasium, an outdoor 
amphitheater in the bowled area immediately north of the parking lot 
adjacent to Van Meter Hall, and a nine-hole golf course.^ 



General Campus 
Adjustments 



N E 



Faculty, Students 
and Curriculum 
(1948-1967) 



T 

M hree 



hree successive chapters devoted 
to the theme of bricks and mortar, involving principally the president 
and the Board of Trustees, warrant a pause to consider the elements 
central to the purpose of the College: the academic program and the 
persons most concerned with it — the faculty and students. 

A college curriculum, because it is subject to change, must be moni- 
tored with constant vigilance to keep it responsive to the educational 
needs, not only of individuals, but of contemporary society as well. At 
no time was this more true than during the two decades spanned by the 
Kraushaar administration, encompassing the Korean and Vietnam 
Wars, the feminist movement, the crusades for civil liberties, and the 
political activism of students. Obviously, the period, which included the 
first so-called knowledge explosion, generally cited as one of the major 
forces impelling curricular reform, required a willingness on the part of 
administrators, faculty, and students to examine new ideas and social 
changes and to reflect the best of these in the program of the College. 



If the faculty in 1948 was apprehensive about the changes President 
Kraushaar might bring with him, its members were nevertheless ready 
to look objectively — though cautiously — at new ideas. They were a 
seasoned group, most of them (79 percent) women recruited during the 
twenties and thirties. Sixty-two percent were full professors, while only 
21 percent were in the combined ranks of instructor and assistant pro- 
fessor. (Because of many retirements during the decade, a balance of 39 
and 38 percent respectively was reached in 1958.) 

The faculty was a remarkably cohesive group in its attitude toward 
the curriculum hammered out in the early thirties. While it might cyn- 
ically be said that teaching positions were not easy to find in the thirties 



and forties, the fact remains that most of the 1947 faculty were at 
Goucher because they were genuinely devoted to the College and the 
educational program they helped to create. They were, for the most part, 
excellent teachers, and some were scholars who, then or later, achieved 
national and international recognition in their respective fields. 

Perhaps the most striking detail that emerges when we consider the 
composition of the faculty in the Kraushaar years is the longevity of 
individual members. This can be explained in part by the small amount 
of movement during the depression years; hardly any recruiting of new 
faculty occurred, and little replacement was necessary because, with few 
other institutions recruiting, resignations to accept positions at other 
colleges or universities became rare. Even taking that into account, the 
Goucher faculty, particularly in the senior ranks, has remained com- 
paratively stable during the period encompassed by this history. 

The Kraushaar years seem an appropriate time to review the com- 
position and distribution of the faculty, since 70 percent of those who 
taught at Goucher during the period 1930-85 and who attained the 
rank of full professor served for at least part of their Goucher careers 
under President Kraushaar. (Unless otherwise noted, all the faculty 
mentioned in the rest of this section held the rank of professor at the end 
of their Goucher service, or in 1985 if still at the College.) 

Looking first at the humanities, we find a good illustration of the 
faculty's longevity in the sequence of full professors in the Art Depart- 
ment. The study of art at Goucher began with Hans Froelicher (1888- 
1930), who, in 1895, added the title of professor of art criticism to his 
professorship of German literature. In art he was succeeded by Eleanor 
Spencer ( 1 930—62), who was later joined by Lincoln F. Johnson (1950— 
85). These three careers span the entire ninety-seven-year period from 
the opening of the College in 1888 to the close of this history in 1985. 
The remaining full professors in the department — whose name changed 
from Art to Fine Arts to Visual Arts and finally back to Art — were 




Bennett Hall fencing class, 1950 




Class in Goucher Hall, 1950s 



Richard Lahey (1936-60), Gretel Chapman (1961-81), Eric Van Schaack 
( 1 964-68), and the only full professor who was primarily a studio artist 
rather than an art historian, painter Hilton Brown (1968-78). 

Music teaching began at Goucher much later than art. The first 
professor of music, Otto Ortmann (1942—57), started as a visiting lec- 
turer from the Peabody Conservatory. He was succeeded by Elliott W. 
Galkin (1956-77), later director of the Peabody, and the distinguished 
composer Robert Hall Lewis (1957-). 

The other two performing arts taught at Goucher, theater and dance, 
began life under the wing of an existing department. While speech and 
drama had long been taught by the English Department, the first faculty 
member in that department with the title of professor of speech and 
drama was George Brendan Dowell (1962-75). Professor Dowell was 
immediately followed by Barry Knower (1975-), now professor of the- 
ater and chairman of that fully independent department. Dance was 
brought to Goucher by Chrystelle Trump Bond (1963-), who, after 
serving successively as a member of the Physical Education, English, and 
Performing Arts Departments, is now chairman of the independent and 
highly successful Department of Dance. 

Not surprisingly, English is second only to History in the number of 
full professors since 1930. As can be seen from the following list, eleven 
of the fourteen served during the Kraushaar administration, and four of 
these retired in the fifties; no one in the group was hired in the thirties. 



The longevity of Goucher's English professors clearly stands out; the 
average length of service of the entire group of fourteen is twenty-one 
years; the average for the first seven is thirty-four: 

Annette B. Hopkins, 191 1—44 

Ola Elizabeth Winslow, 1914—45 

Joseph M. Beatty, Jr., 1917—58 

Anna Irene Miller, 1917-52 

Elizabeth Nitchie, 1918-54 

Roberta Florence Brinkley, 19Z4-47 

Rae Blanchard, 1929-54 

Sara deFord, 1946-81 

Virginia Canfield, 1948—64 

Elizabeth Geen, 1950—68 (dean and vice president) 

Sarah Dowlin Jones, 1952-81 (librarian) 

Brooke Peirce, 1954-85 

William Hedges, 1956- 

William Randolph Mueller, 1959—73 

The roster of professors of modern languages includes: 

Wilfred A. Beardsley, 1919-47; romance languages 

Louise Cleret Seibert, 1919-58; French 

Esther J. Crooks, 1921—49; Spanish 

Charles W. Lemmi, 1921—43; Italian and French 

Jane F. Goodloe, 1923-52; German 

Eunice R. Goddard, 1924—46; French 

Lester Gilbert Crocker, 1950—60; romance languages 

Enrique Noble, 1952—66; Spanish 

Wolfgang E. Thormann, 1957—; French 

Frederic O. Musser, 1964—; French 

Rudy John Lentulay, 1966—; Russian 

Sergio Rigol, 1969—; Spanish 

In addition to these full professors,' four associate professors, each of 
whom taught at the College for over twenty years, deserve mention: 
Jeanne Rosselet (1930-58, French); Genevieve Marechaux (1960-81, 
French); Vlada Tolley (1962-84, Russian); and Sibylle Ehrlich (1963-, 
German). 

Between 1930 and its termination in 1976, the Classics Department 
had only two full professors, Hermann L. Ebeling (191 1-33) and Alice 
F. Braunlich (1923—53), but we cannot omit mention of one of its truly 
great teachers and chairmen, John Carter Williams, who came to 
Goucher as assistant professor in 1954 and left as an associate professor 
in 1968 to accept a full professorship at his alma mater. Trinity College. 




Language laboratory, 1959 



Although the disciplines of philosophy and religion now constitute a 
single department in Faculty I, for many years they were not only dis- 
tinct departments but divided between two Faculties, philosophy con- 
sidered as part of the humanities, and religion grouped in Faculty II with 
history and the social sciences. Since 1930 philosophy has had four full 
professors: Gertrude Carman Bussey (1915—53), one of Goucher's most 
memorable teachers; Raymond P. Hawes (1920—56); Mary Carman 
Rose (1953-81); and Joseph Morton (1963-), all of whom taught in 
the Kraushaar period, as did three of the five most recem professors of 
religion: Harris E. Kirk (1925-40), Mary E. Andrews (1926-57), S. 
Vernon McCasland (1928-39), Walter M. Morris (1949-71), and John 
V. Chamberlain (1955— )• 

Of the departments in Faculty II, History and the Social Sciences, the 
History Department stands out by having the largest number of pro- 
fessors in the College since 1930, and some of the most distinguished: 

Thadeus P. Thomas (1892-34), whose fields also included econom- 
ics and sociology and who co-authored the earlier history of Goucher 

Katherine Jeanne Gallagher (1915-48) 

Mary Wilhelmine Williams (1915-48) 

Eugene Newton Curtis (1917—44) 

Ella Lonn (1918-45) 

Dorothy Stimson (1921-55) (dean 1921-47) 

Dorothea E. Wyatt (1940-52) 

Kenneth O. Walker (1945-74) 

Anne Gary Pannell (1949—50) (dean) 

Rhoda Mary Dorsey (1954-) (president since 1974) 



William L. Neumann (1954—71) 
George A. Foote (1955-83) 
R. Kent Lancaster (1963-) 
Jean Harvey Baker (1970—) 
Julie Roy Jeffrey (197Z-) 

The Political Science Department, since 1984 called the Department 
of Politics and Public Policy, has had five professors since 1930, the first 
of whom, Clinton Ivan Winslow (192,3—62), has been frequently men- 
tioned in these pages. Professor Brownlee Sands Corrin (195Z— 85), first 
director of the Field Politics Center, became Goucher's first professor of 
communications in 1975. More recent arrivals include Jerome I. 
Cooperman (196Z— 80), Marianne Githens (1965—), and Lawrence Kay 
Munns (1968-). 

The Department of Economics, now Economics and Management, 
has had eight professors over the last fifty-five years: 

Ivan Eugene McDougle (i 9x4- 56), economics and sociology 

Elinor Pancoast (1924—60) 

Elizabeth Redden Fitzhugh (1945-70), economics and sociology 

Frederick Gustav Reuss (1945-70) 

Noel J. J. Farley (1964-71) 

Blanche Fitzpatrick (1980-82) 

Andre Corbeau (1980-83), management 

Theodore Surani-Unger (1983—) 

In addition to Professors Thomas, McDougle, and Fitzhugh, already 
mentioned, the Department of Sociology has had three full professors: 
MoUie Ray Carroll (1920—30), Olive Westbrooke Quinn (1958—80), 
and Alice S. Rossi (1969—74). 

The remaining department in Faculty II, Education, has had seven 
full professors since 1930, six of whom served in the Kraushaar period: 

Stella A. McCarty (1915-36) 

Kathryn McHale (1920-49) 

Esther Crane (1925-55) 

Beulah Benton Tatum (1948—72) 

Jane Morrell (1957—83) 

EHVelder(i958-) 

Rolf Muuss (1959—) 

Goucher's reputation in the mathematics and the sciences is ulti- 
mately based on the quality of its faculty in those disciplines, and the 
following lists of full professors in Faculty III since 1930 include many 
distinguished names. In mathematics, the seven professors have been: 

Florence P. Lewis (1908—47) 

Clara Latimer Bacon (1897-34) 




Physiology class, 195c 



Marian M. Torrey (192.5-59) 
Dorothy L. Bernstein (1959-79) 
Elaine Koppelman (1961-) 
Geraldine A. Coon (1964-80) 
Robert Edward Lewand (1977—) 

Like the Mathematics and Chemistry Departments, several of whose 
members have been memorialized on the Towson campus (the Lewis 
telescope and Bacon House named for mathematicians, the Belle Otto 
Talbot room and the Kelley Lecture Hall for chemists), the Department 
of Biological Sciences is proud of the Gairdner Moment Wing of the 
Hoffberger Science Building. Before the Department of Physiology and 
Hygiene, later called Physiology and Bacteriology, was combined with 
the Department of Biology to constitute the new Department of Biolog- 
ical Sciences in 1958, the members of the department had various titles 
representing their particular specialties, as indicated below. Since 1958 
all members have been professors of biological sciences: 

Jessie L. King (191 1-47) (physiology) 

William H. Longley (1911-37) (botany, 1911-19; biology, 1919- 

37) 

Ralph E. Cleland (1919-38) (botany, 1919-20; biology, 1919-37) 

Ladema Mary Langdon (1920-58) (biology) 

Mary Ashmun Hodge (1925-47) (physiology and hygiene) 

Gairdner Bostwick Moment (1932-70) (biology, 1932-58) 

H. Bentley Glass (1938-47) (biology) 




: microscopes, 1950s 



Phoebe Jeannette Crittenden (1947-64) (physiology and hygiene, 
1947-50; physiology and bacteriology, 1950-58) 

H. Marguerite Webb (1952-79) (physiology, 1952-58) 

Helen B. Funk (1956-78) (physiology and bacteriology, 1952-58) 

Helen M. Habermann (1958-) 

Ann M. Lacy (1959-) 

While the list of professors of chemistry is shorter, it is no less distin- 
guished: 

Howard Huntley Lloyd (1916-58) 

Louise Kelley (1920-59) 

Belle Otto Talbot (1928-70) 

James L. A. Webb (1959-85) 

Barton L. Houseman (1961— ) 

Lewis A. Walker ( 1 964-) 

David E. Horn (1967-) 

Physics, long independent but currently part of the Chemistry De- 
partment, has had four professors since 1930: Samuel N. Taylor (191 1— 
33), Vola Price Barton (1919-61), M. Katherine Frehafer (1925-52), 
and William Richard Stroh (1962-81). 

Five professors have served in the Psychology Department during the 
past fifty-five years: Ethel Bowman (1917-40), Annalies A. Rose 
(1949-60), Ruth C. Wylie (1962-82), Barbara Long (1965-85), and 
Jean Bradford (1966—). 



Table 5 Salaries and Wages, Goucher Faculty and Other Vocations, 1953-54 



Average Faculty Salaries 
(1953-54) 


Average Salaries or Wages 
Vocations (1954) 


, Other 


Goucher Rank 




Amount 


Other Vocation 




Amount 


Professor 
Assoc. Prof. 
Asst. Prof. 
Instructor 




$5,630 
4,667 
4,110 
3,240 


Physicians 

Dentists 

Railroad conductors 

Manufacturing workers 




$15,000 
8,500 
6,676 
4,051 



Source: Goucher College Bulletin III, vol. 24, no. 2, October 1957. 

Finally, Physical Education, though now a department under the 
dean of students, was for many years an academic department belong- 
ing to Faculty III. During that time it was chaired by two full professors, 
each a legend in her own right: Eline von Borries (19Z1-63) and 
Josephine Fiske (1929—70). 

When President Kraushaar took office in 1948, the faculty was as well 
aware as he of the formidable scope of his task; changes would have to 
be made if the College was to maintain its status in an increasingly 
competitive academic world; the curriculum might be changed; faculty 
salaries had to be raised; student enrollments had to rise; the move to 
the Towson campus had to be completed as expeditiously as possible; 
good replacements for pending retirees had to be found. The faculty was 
encouraged by President Kraushaar's first priority: he began by raising 
salaries. 

With a majority of the 1948 faculty scheduled to retire by the early 
1960s, a large replacement problem clearly loomed ahead, one which 
required the College to increase salaries rapidly, not solely for the sake of 
the long-tenured faculty, but to attract the best available new teachers to 
replace them. When President Kraushaar took office, faculty salaries 
were, in his words, "atrociously low," but during the fifties they rose 
sharply, with material improvements in such fringe benefits as pensions 
and sabbaticals. By the end of the decade the salaries of instructors had 
almost doubled, while the salaries of full professors had risen approxi- 
mately 90 percent. Dr. Kraushaar raised the issue of faculty salaries year 
after year in meetings of the Executive Committee.- One of his most 
effective techniques consisted of comparing the average figures for the 
four ranks at Goucher with average figures for other vocations (see table 
5 ). A measure of President Kraushaar's success in improving salaries can 
be seen in the comparison of median faculty salaries for 1950—51 and 
1964—65 shown in table 6. 

Replacements were gradually found for retiring faculty members un- 



Table 6 


Med.: 
1950- 


in Goucher Faculty 
-51 and 1964-65 


Sal 


aries. 


Rank 




1950-51 






1964-65 


Professor 
Associate Prof. 
Assistant Prof. 
Instructor 




$4,700 
4,000 
3,350 
2,800 






$13,400 
9,500 
8,000 
6,800 



Source: Mir 
1964. 



of the Board of Trustees, June 13, 



til, by the early sixties, new appointments outnumbered those dating 
from the twenties and thirties. The imbalance between male and female 
faculty members was reduced, the size of the faculty increased, and the 
thinness of some departments was remedied by the appointment of full- 
time or part-time instructors. The gradual pace of the new appoint- 
ments helped the discussion about curricular changes; old and new 
faculty members could exchange ideas in a setting in which both felt 
secure and comfortable. 



Faculty, Students, 
Curriculum 



By 1947 the Goucher student body had dwindled from its 19ZI peak of 
over a thousand to 739, the depression and the deteriorating condition 
of the Baltimore campus having taken their toll. For the most part 
students came from the eastern United States, though a fair number 
came from the South. Few foreign students and no blacks attended.^ 
Many of the undergraduates (the so-called city students) lived in Bal- 
timore and were recruited from the two outstanding high schools for 
girls. Eastern and Western. Western High School sent to Goucher a 
significant number of its best students who, through an accelerated 
program (the A course), had graduated in three years."* City students 
were almost certainly among the best in the College, but comparing the 
quality of entering classes is impossible prior to the requiring of the 
College Board entrance examinations in 1949.^ The quality of the stu- 
dent body had been adversely affected by the difficulty of having to 
commute between two campuses and by the paucity of scholarship 
funds. By 195 1, however, the tide had turned. Increasing funds for 
scholarships, the next-to-last move of students to the new campus, and 
energized efforts by a new director of admissions and the alumnae to 
improve recruitment contributed to the change. Each year after 1951 the 
verbal and mathematical scores of entering students rose, partly as a 
consequence of the post-Sputnik phenomenon. On February 25, 1961, 
President Kraushaar shared with the Board of Trustees the following 
statistics concerning median aptitude test scores of entering freshmen: 



The Student Body 



1951 



SAT-V 
SAT-M 



525 
452 



547 
481 



562 
534 



610 
565 



These were, of course, years in which admissions scores at the college 
level and the number of students admitted to graduate schools rose 
dramatically nationwide; the phenomenon was by no means unique to 
Goucher. 

The increased academic quality of the student body was enhanced in 
1951 by the entrance of the first early admission students. The idea of 
early admissions arose in 1950 when the staff of the Fund for the Ad- 
vancement of Education, an arm of the Ford Foundation, was looking 
for new educational initiatives to support. With the Korean War loom- 
ing and the threat of another military draft in the offing, the rationale of 
the early admissions program was to get young men started on their 
college careers before they were drafted into military service. The Fund's 
staff wanted to encourage the brightest young men to enter college after 
only two or three years of high school work. 




Freshman bonfire, 1950s 



President Kraushaar learned of the fund's plans just in time to apply 
for one of the first grants, and Goucher became was one of twelve 
institutions to receive financial grants sufficient to pay full college 
charges for fifteen students over a two-year period, with the strong 
possibility of subsequent renewal. The first grant amounted to 
$108,400, the largest gift to come to the College up to that point in the 
Kraushaar administration. 

On May 21, 195 1, President Kraushaardiscussed with the Executive 
Committee the application of the grant which was intended to cover the 
cost of: 

I. Two-year scholarships at $1,500 each for thirty students between 
the ages of fifteen and sixteen and a half who had completed at least 
two years of high school 

z. A travel allowance of $100 for each student 

3. Salary for a special guidance officer 

4. A fund for publicity^ 

According to President Kraushaar, "We soon discovered that in addition 
to the generous financial subsidy, a strong prestige value accrued to 
institutions participating in the Early Admissions Program. National 
press coverage of the experiment was immediate and continuing, partly 
because of its novelty in the educational world, partly because it was one 
of the first grants made by the recently established Ford Foundation. 
Moreover, the twelve colleges on the original list read like 'Who's Who' 
of private colleges in the United States; and to top it all off, we were the 
only college for women on the list." 

In 1949 the College introduced a program in elementary teacher 
education leading to the A.B. degree, the first accredited in Mary- 
land, apart from the teachers colleges. In 1953, thanks to President 
Kraushaar and Professor Esther Crane, chairman of the Department of 
Education, the College increased the student body by adding the "fifth- 
year," a graduate program leading to the degree of Master of Education. 
This program was part of a national trend directed to the improvement 
of teaching. A grant from the Fund for the Advancement of Education 
defrayed the costs of introducing the experiment.'' 



The Major Along with the need to plan the future replacement of a large portion of 

Restructuring of the the faculty. President Kraushaar saw the desirability of making adjust- 
Lower Division ments in various areas of the curriculum.** While some departmental 

Curriculum restructuring and other curricular adjustments were clearly desirable. 

President Kraushaar recognized that this process could not be accom- 
plished overnight; to some extent it would have to await the arrival of 
new personnel as the older faculty gradually reached retirement age. 
Meanwhile, the primary step to be taken on the presidential level was to 
appoint a good academic dean — which President Kraushaar did, in the 
person of Elizabeth Geen.'' 

The curriculum that was in place when President Kraushaar took 

office was a blend of the tenets of the progressive education movement 

and those in effect at the University of Chicago, from which both Presi- 

101 dent Robertson and a number of faculty members had come. Its chief 



emphasis was on an individualized education that would allow a stu- 
dent to progress freely through the curriculum if she could show by tests 
that she had the skills, techniques, and knowledge that courses or- 
dinarily provided. Theoretically, there were no required courses. 

As we have seen, eight objectives defined the goals of general educa- 
tion; what Dean Geen calls "their zealous guardians" were the soph- 
omore examinations given at the end of the student's second year, 
though in theory she could take them any time she wished. Through 
these gates the student passed to the upper division and the major. A 
faculty Examination Board presided over the sophomore examinations, 
supposedly remaking the tests each year, though in reality only two 
alternating versions were used — a fact fairly well known by Goucher 
students. 

The curriculum and the three-term system complemented each other 
in their efforts to present knowledge in depth. At its best, the curricular 
program within its ten-week time frame was extremely demanding in 
terms of frequent papers, field work, outside reading, and the almost 
unrelenting pace of classes meeting four times a week (in non-laboratory 
courses). By 1947, however, the system was sagging, unable to bear the 
weight of a divided campus with all that that entailed. Worst of all, 
perhaps, was the fact that though the Goucher library collection was 
available downtown, it was a bus ride away; faculty and students settled 



Faculty, Students, 
Curriculum 




Stud 




Mary Fisher Hall common room, 195c 



for outside reading from a selection of books from the main collection 
carted out to the Towson campus and then carted back at the end of the 
term. Making the whole system work as it should was difficult for 
faculty and students alike. 

As early as the first year of his presidency Dr. Kraushaar had raised 
questions about the curriculum, specifically addressing the validity of 
the sophomore examinations in what seemed to him their fragmenta- 
tion of the unity of knowledge. He also hoped to bridge the gap between 
artificially separated fields by replacing the usual introductory depart- 
mental courses with interdisciplinary general education courses.'" Un- 
fortunately, the obstacles to success were formidable. As Jencks and 
Riesman put it, 

Administrators who hear about successful general education pro- 
grams . . . often think they will be easy to establish. They sound easy, and 
sometimes cheap too, since one can presumably use existing talent instead of 
hiring new specialists in esoteric fields. But on closer inspection the intellec- 
tual and managerial problems of general education turn out to be staggering. 
One of the most serious is the recruitment of faculty sufficiently talented, 
both intellectually and humanly, to create courses that are genuinely inter- 
disciplinary rather than merely additive. . . . For these and other rea- 
sons, . . . the trend seems to be away from interdisciplinary efforts at the 
undergraduate level and toward renewed acceptance of the value of introduc- 
tory courses in the academic disciplines.' ' 

While the faculty was not yet ready to replace the sophomore exam- 
inations, they were receptive to the idea of the construction of three 
interdisciplinary courses funded by a $25,000 grant from the Ford 
Foundation's Fund for the Advancement of Education, it took a year and 
all the money in released faculty time to construct the three courses, 
which entered the curriculum beginning in 195Z-53.' - All were highly 



successful as courses, but all three were dropped after from one to five 
years for essentially the same reason: they could not supply the substan- 
tive material that the major departments needed as introductions to 
their disciplines. Moreover, since three instructors collaborated in giv- 
ing each course, the cost in teaching time was three times that of the 
usual course, and — even more telling — the interdisciplinary offerings 
cut down the course repertory of the teachers themselves, since once 
they had prepared themselves to offer one of the interdisciplinary 
courses, they were saddled with it. The team-taught courses, in short, 
were not the best means of correcting the weaknesses of the 1 9 3 4 curric- 
ulum. 

As Dean Geen has pointed out,i3 the fact that the actual reconstruc- 
tion of the curriculum took four years (1953—57) should not be inter- 
preted as an indication of faculty opposition to the changes which came 
gradually and fitted into a whole new scheme — a curriculum that 
moved progressively upward from introductory to advanced levels. The 
apparent slowness of the installation of the new system was the result of 
a deliberate policy not to push too fast when so many other changes had 
to be absorbed. New members of the faculty were replacing retiring 
professors; new buildings were becoming accustomed features of the 
landscape; new roads were being built; the academic departments that 
were thinly staffed were being merged with others related to them (for 
example. Economics and Sociology; Biology and Physiology). All these 
changes had to be absorbed and integrated into a whole which the 
faculty could fully accept. One telling factor that undoubtedly facili- 
tated such acceptance was the widespread tendency on the part of young 
faculty in the late fifties to replicate their graduate curricula and to 
devote themselves to training students to become future Ph.D.'s. 




Some members of the class of 195 1 



Before long, President Kraushaar had to devote himself to the finan- 
cial and building problems that confronted him, and Dean Geen took 
charge of the Curriculum Committee and the reforms that emerged 
from it over the following decade. It seems fair to say that the frontal 
attack on the 1934 curriculum that led eventually to its 1958 successor 
began with a remarkable speech delivered to a faculty conference by 
Dean Geen on September 24, 1953. In her address, called "Strengths 
and Weaknesses of the Goucher College Curriculum," ^'* Dean Geen, by 
highlighting the discrepancy between the ideals underlying the 1934 
curriculum and the reality of its implementation, set the stage for years 
of effort on the part of the Curriculum Committee to improve the state of 
the academic program. Considering the 1934 curriculum. Dean Geen 
first analyzed its origins, making two essential points: 

(i) The Goucher College curriculum and schedule were conceived in the 
image of the mature, oriented and/or honors students. I believe that the 
schedule at least needs to be modified in view of the fact that we have many 
who do not fall into any one of these categories, (z) The objectives are 
laudable as over-all objectives, but we need closer definition if we are to use 
them as controls for the Sophomore Examination and the lower division 
curriculum.'^ 

As Dean Geen's critique reminded the faculty, the Sophomore Gener- 
al Examination sprang from the desire of the 1934 curriculum's framers 
to separate markedly the first two years (the lower division) from the 
junior and senior years (the upper division), with the latter devoted 
primarily to progress in the major and the former designed to insure 
progress in meeting the eight objectives of general education. The soph- 
omore examination constituted the rite de passage between the two 
divisions and presented, as the faculty discovered in the mid-thirties, a 
formidable challenge to the committees that faced the task of formulat- 
ing valid questions to measure progress towards the achievement of the 
very broadly stated objectives. 

In the restructuring of the curriculum the sophomore examinations 
were crucial. To abolish them and the eight objectives at one stroke was 
inconceivable; they were part of a period in Goucher's history pervaded 
by educational ideals. So began a four year search for a substitute test: 
the National College Sophomore Testing program, which was far too 
undemanding; the College Board's Area Tests of the Graduate Record 
Examinations; even, finally, with the help of some College Board experts 
in objective tests, an attempt at making a new sophomore examination. 
These too failed. In 1957 a convinced faculty accepted finally what had 
become increasingly clear: the sophomore examinations were ob- 
solete,'* as were the eight objectives and the set of educational mores 
they represented. They were remnants of a period in American educa- 
tion that had made an invaluable contribution, but a new and more 
demanding set of ideas was pressing forward to replace them. 

During the years from 1953 to 1957, the quality of education na- 
tionally underwent a thorough and intense review, partly as a result of 
the dismal showing in tests Korean War draftees took on entering mili- 
tary service. The federal government and the major foundations, espe- 
cially Ford and Rockefeller, began to pour money into academic confer- 
ences of various kinds designed to raise the quality of education. 



Goucher's own curricular studies were thus affected by the national 
effort and the increase in the number of well-quahfied students. College 
and faculty morale was high; curricular studies kept the faculty on their 
feet and in tune with the times. 

In June 1955 President Kraushaar appointed a Special Committee on 
General Education whose purpose was to "develop a program in which 
an inherent flexibility and adaptability to the educational needs of indi- 
vidual students would be products of a reconciliation of freedom and 
control." The special committee reported to the Curriculum Committee 
in January 1956, proposing a program that differed from the pattern of 
distribution and "fiat" courses of the 1934 curriculum chiefly in its 
attempt to ensure progression in depth of learning and a firm foundation 
in the several intellectual fields through sequential courses and a system 
of distribution. The committee recommended an open-ended system, 
with exemptions from standard requirements on the basis of qualitative 
differences and heterogeneous preparation. It also proposed building 
sequential and interdepartmental courses to fulfill distribution require- 
ments. Specifically, the committee's recommendations to the Curricu- 
lum Committee were: 

I. Required Proficiencies 

To be demonstrated through achievement examinations and/or 
successful completion of courses in the following areas: 

a. English Expository Prose (1—2 courses) 

b. Foreign Language (1—4 courses) 

c. Mathematics or Logic (i course) 

d. Western Civilization (2 courses) 

e. Sacred Scriptures (i course) 

II. Knowledge of Materials and Methods of the Three Fields of 
Knowledge 

To be achieved by the free election of four 2-term sequential courses, 
one of which should be an interdepartmental course: 
Faculty I (humanities): one 2-term course 
Faculty II (social sciences): one i-term course 
Faculty III (natural sciences): two 2-term courses, one 
in the biological sciences, the other in the physical sciences 

III. Sophomore General Examinations 

Discontinuance of a series of sophomore examinations in view 
of recommended "alternatives" I and II above. 

These recommendations were debated and amended, first by the 
Curriculum Committee in May 1956, then by the Faculty in three meet- 
ings beginning on November 10, 1956. Ultimately, the required profi- 
ciency in English expository prose was expressed in terms of specific 
courses; the June 15,1951, language requirement was left unchanged,' -^ 
the mathematics or logic and the western civilization requirements were 
dropped, and no action was taken on the sacred scriptures requirement 
since it was a Charter requirement in any case.'^ 

Concerning the distribution requirements, the courses in Faculties I 
and II could be either two-term general courses or two-term sequences, 
and in Faculty III a two-term general course or sequence and two one- 
term courses or a second two-term course or sequence would be re- 
quired.'^ 



Finally, with regard to the Sophomore General Examination, the 
Faculty voted that the system of sophomore examinations should be 
retained for purposes of guidance and for securing information about 
the national standing of students, the tests being defined as the Area 
Tests of the Graduate Record Examination, a library test, and an essay 
examination. 

On January li, 1957, the Faculty voted that the new curriculum 
would become effective for the entering freshman class in the fall of 
1958. 



The Upper Division When the Faculty voted in 1957 against the use of any one of the three 

Curriculum interdisciplinary courses as a prerequisite to an upper division course in 

the major, they were not only following the national drive toward higher 
academic demands and increased concentration on specialized fields 
(especially in the sciences and mathematics), they were also shaping the 
new curriculum whose structure was to be in accord with the progres- 
sion of knowledge from introductory to advanced in all subjects — a 
progression applicable not only to the sciences and mathematics, but 
also to the social sciences and the humanities. This was an ideal whose 
implementation was mandated but also complicated by the contempo- 
raneous knowledge explosion. 

The curricular changes in the program of the junior and senior years 
were relatively simple to make since the structure of the whole was now 
visible, though the adjuncts of the various majors had to be examined: 
comprehensive examinations, independent work, and the honor sys- 
tem. Some remaining loose ends also needed to be tied before the logic of 
the whole would be realized. The time required for finishing up the work 
was relatively short compared to the time spent on the curriculum of the 
first two years. 

In 1958 the Curriculum Committee began welding together the 
courses of the lower and upper divisions, citing the Report of the Eval- 
uating Committee of the Middle States Association dated February 
1958. The Middle States team had visited and evaluated the College in 
1957, and while its report pointed to no major curricular weaknesses, it 
did mention a few isolated problems. Among other matters, it noted the 
difficulty of filling vacancies in certain fields (such as anthropology) and 
the thinness inherent in very small departments that were attempting, 
with only one or two teaching members, to offer full major programs. 
The evaluation team also detected, in some nonscience areas, an over- 
emphasis on general education, sometimes at the expense of the ma- 
jor.-o In particular, the team noted the lack of prerequisites for many 
upper division departmental courses. 

Indeed, few courses, outside the sciences and languages, could be 
called intermediate. Prior to 1958 the relative failure to demand vertical 
course progression in the lower division made almost impossible the 
setting of prerequisites for supposedly advanced courses. The result was 
heterogeneity in the preparation of students in advanced courses, lead- 
ing to excessive repetition of basic material already covered by many 
students or to a general lowering of the demand otherwise commensu- 
rate with the level of course difficulty. As a result, the best students were 
108 often not sufficiently challenged, nor were they prepared for the true 




the Operation Moonwatch Team on the 



nulding, 1957 



independent work they undertook for honors. In the Curriculum Com- 
mittee's view, changes were needed. Specifically, the committee recom- 
mended that "all departments immediately undertake a study of their 
offerings, looking toward the division of their courses into three or four 
levels of difficulty, with seminars, presently established or to be estab- 
lished, considered as the most advanced level of difficulty."'^ 

The committee further recommended "that the departments, during 
the period of their curricular study, consider such questions as the fol- 
lowing: Should the major include any courses below level II? What 
prerequisites should be set up for progression from level II to level III? 
How many level III courses should a major require? How many level I 
courses should a student be allowed to take in the upper division?"'' 
(At this time the only policies governing the major were the six-hour 
comprehensive examination, the provision that major courses or- 
dinarily be upper division courses, and that departmental and combina- 
tion majors consist of nine and twelve courses respectively.) 

The committee also detected a need to curb lateral spread in the last 
two years resulting from the election of courses unrelated to the major 
and deemed easy in relation to major courses taken concurrently. This 
could be accomplished by supporting the major through related studies, 
thereby providing a focus to the election of non-major courses. (Related 



studies were defined as a series of courses unified by a continuity of 
interest and developed by progressive exploration, the interest focused 
either on material considered necessary or highly desirable for the major 
or material which might meet particular needs and objectives of the 
student.) To this end, the committee proposed "that the departments 
consider for eventual adoption the idea of 'related' studies as an aid in 
the development of coherence and depth in a student's total program for 
the last two years."-' 

The Curriculum Committee also called attention to the need for 
some form of general honors-"' so that a student with a very high grade 
point average could be recognized, even if she did not earn honors in the 
major. At the time, the only recognition of this sort was through election 
to Phi Beta Kappa. Moreover, the Records and Curriculum Committees 
together felt that nothing less than a two-term independent work proj- 
ect should lead to honors in the major. 

To correct perceived weaknesses in the system of honors at gradua- 
tion, the Curriculum Committee recommended "that the faculty accept 
an honors system which will allow a student to qualify for a degree cum 
laude, magna cum laude, or summa cum laude provided that she meets 
the qualifications listed below: 

I. A student to receive a degree cum laude must have either a cumula- 
tive grade point average of 4.25, or a cumulative grade point average 
of 4.00 with an A in the comprehensive examination, or with an A in 
two consecutive terms of 'independent work' undertaken initially in 
the senior year or in the 3rd term of the junior year. 

z. A student to receive a degree magna cum laude must have a cumu- 
lative grade point average of 4.50 in addition to an A in the com- 
prehensive examination or an A in two consecutive terms of 'indepen- 
dent work.' 

3 . A student to receive a degree summa cum laude must have a cumu- 
lative grade point average of 4.50 in addition to an A in the com- 
prehensive examination or an A in two consecutive terms of 'indepen- 
dent work."-'' 

The Faculty passed these recommendations on December 12, 1959, 
to become effective in 1960—6 1 , and at the same meeting it approved the 
rest of the cited recommendations contained in the "Report on the 
Educational Program of the Upper Curriculum." 

Finally, the committee recommended "that each department con- 
sider requiring foreign language readings and reports on foreign lan- 
guage readings in the major field," the purpose being to give meaning to 
the language requirement; "major requirements [should] demand as 
circumstances allow that the foreign language the student has acquired 
be used in the reading she does in pursuit of her major." (It was under- 
stood that in some cases the language in which a student had relative 
proficiency did not readily admit use in the major.) The Faculty ap- 
proved this proposal on December 1 1, t959.-<' 

In its meeting on February 13, i960, the Faculty returned to the 
subject of independent work and honors and voted that independent 
work for two terms begun in the third term of the junior year or the first 
term of the senior year should be called a senior thesis. It also added the 
phrase Independent Work to the name of the Honors Committee, which 



now became known officially as the Committee on Independent Work, 
Honors, Fellowships, Awards, and Recommendations. 

By November 1 2, 1 960, the Faculty had had time to reassess the levels 
of difficulty of courses in the curriculum, and it officially voted to estab- 
lish three levels, with a corresponding system of course numbering. It 
further provided that during the last two years, students should or- 
dinarily elect a total of no more than three courses at level I, and that of 
the nine courses constituting a departmental major, at least three must 
be on level III or part of the senior thesis. The same proviso applied to 
the twelve courses making up a combination major, with at least two of 
the disciplines composing the major represented in the three level III 
courses. 

With the passage of this legislation, the attempt to correct the defi- 
ciencies of the 1934 curriculum, adumbrated in Dean Geen's speech of 
September 24, 1953, and pursued relentlessly by the Curriculum Com- 
mittee, came essentially to an end. 2'' The next major changes in the 
curriculum (other than those related to special programs, such as the 
College Teacher Education Program and the Non-Western Studies Pro- 
gram to be discussed below) occurred in 1966, when several actions 
were taken that seemed to reflect student concerns that largely influ- 
enced the "Report of the Committee on the Future of the College" and 
the major curricular restructuring it brought about in 1970.28 

By 1 965 the political activism that had started in Berkeley had spread 
to practically every campus in the United States. While Goucher was 
never to know the violence that appeared on some campuses, it was not 
uninfluenced by student protests and challenges. New modes of dress 
and behavior enlivened the college scene; parietal rules were considera- 
bly eased, among them the one that had made it mandatory for out-of- 
town students to live on campus; the curriculum added courses on 
women's role in society; non-Western studies were widely elected; black 
studies were discussed. Students questioned the validity of the grading 
system, which they saw as a judgmental decree affecting postgraduate 
life and careers; this concern led to the introduction of a pass-fail option 
which, by easing tensions about grades, enabled a student to elect 
courses that would widen her intellectual interests without prejudicing 
her grade point average.^' Presaging changes to come in 1970, the 
Faculty voted on June 10, 1966, to accept the recommendation by the 
Committee on Records that a two-year experiment, beginning the sec- 
ond term of 1 966—67, be instituted permitting students to elect a certain 
number of courses on a pass-fail rather than a graded basis. Students 
had the first term to prepare for wise use of the plan. 



Faculty, Students, 
Curriculum 



Restructuring the academic program in an effort to overcome the defects 
of the 1934 curriculum took up much of the Faculty's time in the fifties 
and sixties, but many other events affecting the College's academic life 
occurred in the same period. The College had always made an effort to 
support programs that would reach out toward the different worlds 
surrounding it — political, economic, social, and cultural — to take ad- 
vantage of the educational resources they offered to students and faculty 
alike. The College not only reached out, it attempted to bring in mem- 
bers of the community through lectures, recitals, and programs of all 



Outreach in the 
Goucher Academic 
Program 



The Kraushaar kinds. One program which, though not directly a part of the curriculum. 

Administration certainly drew its inspiration largely from classroom teaching was the 

Intellectual Country Fair. This annual event, which began in 1959 and 
lasted until 1978, drew a remarkably large number of community resi- 
dents to the College on a Saturday in the fall to hear lectures by various 
faculty members on topics of both scholarly and genera! interest. These 
encounters between the faculty and the public were stimulating to both 
and contributed significantly to the cordial relations the College enjoyed 
with its neighbors. 

A number of new outreach programs and opportunities appeared 
early in the Kraushaar years within the academic framework. One of the 
first was a renewed emphasis on the junior year abroad. Goucher had 
permitted students in the past to take their junior year abroad, but had 
not given strong encouragement to the program. While the 1948—49 
catalogue did not mention the junior year abroad as an option, the 
1 949—50 catalogue included it."J Of course, this program involved little 
or no reconsideration of Goucher's own course of study. 

A few years later, the question of the best summer use of the Goucher 
campus itself became a concern of the administration, in the summer of 
1954, the College sponsored a Joint Economic Council Workshop for 
experienced teachers. Three weeks of intensive work led to three semes- 
ter hours of graduate credit in education. Seven years later, in May 1 96 1 , 
the College announced for the following summer a German Language 
Institute, inspired by the successful launching of Russia's Sputnik, 
"which," according to Dean Geen, "caused us to realize the weakness of 
foreign language teaching in the United States."^' The institute, sup- 
ported by NDEA funds and the only one of its kind in the Baltimore 
area, lasted seven weeks and was open to faculty of public secondary 
schools, each of whom received $75 per week and $15 for each depen- 
dent. (Private school teachers were eligible to participate, but without 
the government stipend.) The program was staffed by a director, assis- 
tant director, and instructors "who [trained] the teachers in the latest 
techniques of the teaching of German. "'- 

In the summer of 1963, also in response to the perceived need to 
upgrade secondary school education in the wake of Sputnik, Goucher 
offered a five-week institute in economics and sociology, funded by the 
National Science Foundation and open to qualified high school stu- 
dents; the following summer an eight-week institute for secondary 
school teachers of French was added. These institutes were ofifered for 
the last time in 1965. 

Meanwhile, apart from the specialized institutes, the College re- 
established regular summer sessions for the first time since the Second 
World War. The Faculty voted on June 8, 1962, "that courses of at least 
the 200 level, with the majority, if possible at the 300 level, be offered for 
credit in the summer, effective 1963; in the event of approval by the 
Curriculum Committee of courses suitable for graduate credit, that such 
credit be given provided the resources of the faculty are adequate. "^^ By 
December 1962 the curriculum for the 1963 summer session had been 
established, with twenty-eight courses offered, mostly at levels 11 and III. 
No laboratory courses were given, but Faculties II and III were well 
represented. The summer session was repeated in 1964 and 1965, but in 
112 a memorandum dated October 4, 1965, addressed to chairmen of de- 



partments and heads of offices, President Kraushaar regretfully an- Faculty, Students, 

nounced that because of financial losses, the summer sessions and Curriculum 

government-sponsored institutes that had operated in 1963, 1964, and 
1965 had been suspended. 

In 1952 the College began an experimental, tuition-free, reciprocal 
exchange of students with the Johns Hopkins University, permitting 
certain undergraduates from each institution to take selected courses on 
the other campus, provided that the courses in question were not taught 
on the students' home campus. The program has been gradually ex- 
tended over the years to include a number of other colleges and univer- 
sities in Baltimore. 

Some departments also extended their boundaries to take advantage 
of the resources offered by neighboring institutions. Eleanor Spencer, 
professor of fine arts, established unofficial affiliations with the Bal- 
timore Museum of Art and the Walters Art Gallery, permitting students 
to pursue independent work in those art centers. Similarly, the Music 
Department, which took on a new life when Messrs. Sherrod Albritton, 
Eliot Galkin, and Robert Hall Lewis worked out a new curriculum, 
developed close ties with the Peabody Institute. 

An eminently successful innovation, proposed by Professor Clinton I. 
Winslow and introduced in 1954 thanks to a grant from the Falk Foun- 
dation, was the Field Politics Center, now named for Judge Sarah T. 
Hughes. The Center provides students with direct experience of political 
reality through extensive field work and internship opportunities. The 
first director of the Field Politics Center was Professor Brownlee Sands 
Corrin; the current director is Professor L. Kay Munns. 

Apart from the new programs intended for the fully enrolled under- 
graduates, a major innovation occurred in the sixties in the area of 
continuing education. While adult education began at Goucher in 1930 
when the president of the Alumnae Association, Eleanor Diggs Corner, 
appointed the first Adult Education Committee, '"' the College itself did 
not become officially involved in continuing education until much later. 
The most important step in this direction was the introduction in 1964 
of the Wednesday Program, an entrance corridor for women who had 
withdrawn from college without completing their degree requirements 
but later wished to finish their undergraduate education. The Wednes- 
day Program began when Professor Kenneth Walker, chairman of the 
Curriculum Committee's subcommittee concerning a program for 
women whose formal education had been interrupted, asked for and 
received Faculty approval to determine possible need for such a program 
in Baltimore. In a memorandum to the Faculty dated May 24, 1963, 
President Kraushaar announced that the Charles E. Merrill Trust of 
Ithaca, New York, had awarded the College a grant of $25,000, one half 
to be devoted to furthering Goucher's interest in the education of older 
women, primarily those whose undergraduate education had been in- 
terrupted but whose family situation now allowed them to consider 
completing their work for the B. A. degree with a definite goal in mind. A 
preliminary report from the Curriculum Committee suggested a Wed- 
nesday Program (Wednesday being the day when classroom space was 
most available), with participating faculty separately remunerated. 
Once established, the program would be expected to pay its own way. 
No competition with the existing Alumnae Adult Education Program 113 



The Kraushaar was foreseen since the new program would be designed to serve those 

Administration who sought college credit. On the basis of this information, the Faculty 

endorsed the program in principle. 

On May 9, 1964, the Faculty learned that the Wednesday Program 
had just begun with three courses: English (Professor Virginia Canfield), 
fine arts (Professor Lincoln Johnson), and history (Professor Rhoda Dor- 
sey). The size of each class was limited to twenty, with a minimum of ten. 
Fifty-seven women enrolled, only three dropping out (for nonacademic 
reasons). The purpose of the program was to get these women into 
regular college courses as quickly as possible. The problem was how to 
determine when they were ready to move and at what level they should 
enter the regular program. A further question was what "retooling" 
really meant for these women, and how many Wednesday courses they 
should take — or be allowed to take, not to mention the problem of 
establishing prerequisites and sequences. Although the committee did 
not have answers to these problems, the Faculty voted to continue the 
experiment. 

A report on the Wednesday Program dated July 1965 observed that 
during the year and a quarter of its operation, a total of ninety-three 
women had enrolled in the eleven courses given; six of these registrants 
had entered the regular program, and the innovation was paying for 
itself. 

Thanks to strong support and guidance, the Wednesday Program 
flourished and was ultimately succeeded by the Goucher Center for 
Educational Resources (now called the Goucher Center for Continuing 
Studies) and its Goucher II program for women wishing to begin college 
at an age beyond that of the traditional college student. 



Further Curricular An innovation that would later have an enormous impact on the under- 

Developments graduate program resulted from a grant, successfully proposed in 196Z 

by Professor Dorothy Bernstein, chairman of the Mathematics Depart- 
ment, whereby the National Science Foundation gave the College 
$zo,ooo to establish a Computation Center and to purchase an IBM 
i6zo computer. The College was required to raise $30,000 to match the 
cost of the computer ($100,000, less 60 percent educational discount 
from IBM) and to equip the center with supplementary calculators, air- 
conditioning, furniture, and other equipment. ^^ Not only was this the 
beginning of Goucher's participation in the coming computer revolu- 
tion, it was an action taken at such an early date that Goucher was said 
to be the only college of its size in the country with such a computer 
primarily devoted to academic purposes. 

A report submitted to the Ford Foundation extrapolating Goucher's 
program into the following decade proposed the extension of a Goucher 
education into the graduate field. The idea was almost certainly intro- 
duced because of the advanced research appearing in the best of the 
senior theses. That the College was already offering a master's degree in 
education also contributed. On November 11, 1961, the faculty dis- 
cussed a proposal for a five-year program in cooperation with the Johns 
Hopkins University leading to an M.A. in teaching. The program was 
114 intended to be for the preliminary preparation of college teachers. Sub- 



sequently, the Hopkins faculty rejected such a program per se. Accord- Faculty, Students, 

ingly, on February lo, 1962, the Curriculum Committee presented for Curriculum 

the Faculty's approval a revised "Program for the Preparation of College 
Teachers," whose purpose was to identify, by means of Goucher's guid- 
ance system and curricular program, highly motivated and able young 
women as possible college teachers and to lay the scholarly foundation 
for a future doctor's degree, though the immediate goal would be a 
master's degree earned a year after graduation from Goucher. The foun- 
dation for the program had its genesis in Goucher's experience on the 
undergraduate level with early admissions and advanced placement. 
The request to the Ford Foundation to subsidize an experimental pro- 
gram envisioned an alliance with selected universities that would, on 
Goucher's recommendation, let a Goucher applicant for admission 
know by January whether she was admitted, and give advanced credit or 
status on the basis of a senior thesis by the graduate department in- 
volved. The program embraced the following: 

I. Freshman seminars, open to all freshmen but, because of their 
rigorous demands, likely to attract the most able, probably later 
selected as pregraduates 

z. Programs of study for the pregraduates which, though differing 
individually, would all stress independent work to a more than usual 
degree; proficiency in two foreign languages, with high proficiency in 
one gained through a subsidized summer foreign language institute 
here or abroad; a third-level seminar, course, or independent work 
taken in the junior year; and a semester-long graduate course at the 
Johns Hopkins University (or a senior thesis) taken in the senior year 
and a continuation to the master's degree or its equivalent at a univer- 
sity^6 

Of the twenty-one universities that had received funds from the Ford 
Foundation for coordinating master's degree programs similar in some 
respects to the one outlined above, the committee initially favored four: 
Brown, North Carolina, Tufts, and the University of Washington, but 
the committee strongly endorsed the idea that the choice of their gradu- 
ate institutions be left to the pregraduates. Dr. Kraushaar said that if the 
Faculty endorsed the proposal, the College would apply for a grant, 
which would be needed for (i) recruiting able high school students; (2) 
scholarships for entering students; (3) freshman seminars; (4) scholar- 
ships for summer study of foreign languages; and (5) fellowships for 
graduate studies. The Faculty accepted the program as presented, with 
the intention that it be instituted, if financially possible, in 1963—64.-'^ 

On May 11, 1963, Dean Geen informed the Faculty that the College 
had just received a $1 88,000 grant from the Ford Foundation to interest 
young women in college teaching as a career. She further reported that 
the following freshman seminars, inspired by Harvard's experiment, 
had been established for the fall: history (i term) by Miss Rhoda Dor- 
sey; biological sciences (2 terms) by Miss Helen Haberman; and English 
(i term) by Mrs. Florence Howe.^** On May 9, 1964, Dean Geen an- 
nounced that five freshman seminars had been given in 1963—64: the 
three mentioned above, and one each in religion and philosophy. In 
1964—65 seminars would be offered in economics, political science, 
music, fine arts, and chemistry.^' On January 8, 1966, Dean Geen re- ii^ 



ported on the second year of the College Teacher Preparatory Program, 
noting that Western Reserve had now replaced Tufts in the agreement 
with Goucher and that there were forty juniors majoring in twelve 
different disciplines who might be looking toward college teaching.''" 

The program, promising as it was, did not prosper for lack of a wider 
alliance with graduate institutions. Student choices of universities in 
which to pursue graduate work went far beyond those with which 
Goucher was allied. 

On September Z3, 1961, the Faculty was informed that the Ford 
Foundation's Massive Support to Colleges Program had just awarded 
Goucher $1,200,000 which must be matched, within three years, on a 
two-for-one basis. The College, one of eight to receive such a grant at 
that time, would receive $400,000 at once, the remainder dependent on 
the matching funds. The grant would make possible expansion of the 
program of non-Western studies. 

On November 11, 1962, the Faculty learned that history Professor 
Kenneth O. Walker was chairing a faculty committee on a program of 
non-Western studies, which would report shortly. President Kraushaar 
then reviewed the various objectives of the College for the next ten years, 
stating that they could be partly realized with the Ford Foundation 
grant. Objective No. 3 was "A Program of African, Asian, Middle East, 
and Latin American Studies." The sum of $100,000 had been allocated 
for this purpose from the initial Ford Foundation grant."*' 

Professor Walker announced on December 8 the institution of faculty 
seminars and summer fellowships for the encouragement of non- 
Western studies. The proposed seminars were, for 1962-63, "The Far 
East"; for 1963-64, "The Middle East"; for 1964-65, "Africa South 
of the Sahara." The seminars were to be small discussion groups of 
about fifteen, meeting once a week for no more than six weeks. A fund 
had also been established to finance nine fellowships of $1,000 each to 
support faculty study in non-Western areas. The fellowships would be 
available in the summers of 1963, 1964, and 1965.'*- 

Professor Walker further reported that since the inception of the 
program, library holdings in the various non-Western cultures had been 
increased as a result of a special grant. Curricular offerings had also 
increased: 

1934—50: 5 courses offered as non-Western 
1950—60: 9 non- Western courses added 
1960—63: 19 non-Western courses added 

"The character of the faculty has been altered," continued Professor 
Walker. "Individuals have been appointed who have special interests in 
'non-Western' subjects, but who can, in addition, teach in existing 
courses. Some members of the faculty have been traveling and studying 
abroad in these 'non- Western' areas. Seminars, to be given by outside 
specialists, will soon be starting. To date, there have been public lec- 
tures, recitals, and exhibitions offered. The whole program will be 
helped by acquiring more students from the various 'non-Western' 
countries to come here to study and by the faculty exchange program 
announced at the February 8, 1964, meeting."*" 



Faculty, Students, 
Curriculum 



It is perhaps appropriate at the end of this chapter's review of the 
changes in the curriculum effected between 1948 and 1967 to conclude 
with two observations about curricula in general. They follow naturally 
from what was said at the outset about the vigilance that any college 
must exert over all its elements, but especially over the curriculum. First, 
a specific college's curriculum that is under review with the objective of 
restructuring it eventually assumes a form that is consistent both with a 
pendulum-like reaction to its own immediate past and with a set of ideas 
prevailing in society at that particular time. The changes, interestingly 
enough, seem to coincide with changes in the presidency. Second, inher- 
ent in their separate existences, curricula carry the seeds of their suc- 
cessors. It is a wise institution that watches for the germination of the 
changes to come. 



Conclusion 



TEN 



The Alumnae Fund 
and the y j t h 
Anniversary 



T 

JL he SI 



The Gaucher College m he staggering cost of building a 

Alumnae Association new campus obviously required large sums that far exceeded the normal 
income a college derives from endowment and student fees, and Presi- 
dent Kraushaar inevitably found himself heavily involved in soliciting 
gifts and grants. The most central source of gift income on which a 
college normally depends is, of course, its alumnae, but to turn the 
Alumnae Association into a significant source of support for the College 
required a fundamental change in alumnae relations. 

When President Kraushaar took office in 1948, the Alumnae Associa- 
tion regarded itself as a completely self-contained and self-directed 
body over which the College had no control.' The association under- 
/ took its own money-raising ventures, made up its own budget, paid its 

own expenses, and gave to the College as the Alumnae Fund whatever 
was left over at the end of each fiscal year. In President Kraushaar's first 
year at the College, the fund contribution amounted to about $3,500, a 
modest sum, suggesting the major undertaking he faced in creating a 
better alumnae attitude toward the College. "The task," writes Dr. 
Kraushaar, "was made the more pleasant because the Alumnae Secre- 
tary at the time, Ethel Cockey, remained in office for many years. 1 
quickly learned that I could always count on her to look on the reason- 
able side of any suggestion for change. There were other outstanding 
alumnae officers, such as Hester Corner Wagner, who was also the 
secretary of the trustee Executive Committee for many years, Mary 
Wilcox, Emma Thomas, and Mary T. McCurley, who had been the 
vocational officer of the College but retired early in my time. 1 met a host 
of alumnae leaders in various cities across the United States who were 
open to persuasion and also to the perception that perhaps things at the 
118 College had changed and that the antipathy between alumnae and the 




^^^^^ib^ 



Julia Rogers Library, reading area, 1960s 



College engendered during the 192.0s should be regarded as a thing of 
the past." 

Before long the alumnae, particularly those in the Baltimore area, 
began to manifest a new spirit whose visible signs included the first 
Country Fair in 1949; the Friends of the Library, organized in 1949; the 
merger of the Alumnae Gift Building Fund with the 1950 Goucher 
College Campaign; the resurgence of the alumnae in such matters as 
returning to reunions and assisting the Admissions Office in the recruit- 
ment of new students for Goucher; and the way in which the Alumnae 
Office accepted relocation several times during the peak days of moving 
and rebuilding. 

By 1954 the transition of the Alumnae Association from an indepen- 
dent and separately controlled body to a department of the College with 
a budget incorporated into the College's budget was completed. At that 
time the office of the Alumnae Association was on the ground floor of 
Van Meter Hall, after having moved successively from the original 
Alumnae Lodge downtown to Goucher House (also downtown), and 
then to the first floor of Froelicher Hall. In 1954 plans were already 
under discussion for the building of the Alumnae House on campus. The 



The Kraushaar alumnae, at this time, also developed a more professional attitude to- 

Administration ward fund-raising. 

The changing attitude of the association was in many ways one of the 
most vital developments of the early 1950s. From the few thousand 
dollars contributed in the late 1940s, the Alumnae Fund rose to 
$367,000 by 1967, the year of President Kraushaar's retirement. To be 
sure, the alumnae made an exceptional effort that year, but since then 
the fund has realized continually higher goals, reaching its current peak 
of over one million dollars in 1985. Alumnae spirit, in short, was one of 
the strongest factors in the resurgence of the College during the 
Kraushaar era, thanks not only to the Alumnae Fund itself but also to 
the contributions countless alumnae have made to the recurring capital 
fund campaigns and in providing legacies for the College. 



The remarkable growth in legacies to the College was largely the work 
of Judge Sarah T. Hughes, '17, to whom President Kraushaar turned for 
help when he began to appreciate the importance of the small bequests 
Goucher received early in his administration. In Dr. Kraushaar's words. 
Judge Hughes "was tough, she was realistic, and she commanded atten- 
tion." After discussing the matter with Alumnae Fund leaders so as to 
interfere as little as possible with their effort, President Kraushaar asked 
Judge Hughes whether she would help. She readily agreed and soon sent 
out a strong letter suggesting that it was fitting, proper, in fact almost a 
duty, for Goucher alumnae to leave bequests in their wills to their alma 
mater. For years thereafter annual letters went out to succeeding classes 
of alumnae urging them to remember Goucher in their wills. While one 
would not expect quick results from such an undertaking, the outcome 
surprised and highly gratified President Kraushaar, who observes that 
by the late 1950s, even in years of hard fund-raising, the amount that the 
College received from legacies in some cases exceeded the sum raised by 
active campaigning.- 

Thus, by the time active planning began for the 75th Anniversary 
Campaign, Goucher could count on continuing support, although not 
in predictable amounts, from four sources: the Alumnae Fund; legacies, 
mostly from alumnae sources; foundation grants; and corporate sup- 
port.^ 



The yjth Anniversary The 75th Anniversary Campaign had a goal of $5,075,000. The hope 
Campaign was that, as a result of the campaign, by 1965 the College would enroll 

one thousand students, compete for the best teaching talent with almost 
any other college or university, and conduct an on-campus program of 
cultural events for Goucher students as well as the surrounding com- 
munity on a substantial scale. 

Although the College engaged the New York firm of Marts and 
Lundy as planning consultants, the actual management of the campaign 
was in the hands of the newly appointed development officer of the 
College, Harry Casey. Despite the size of the goal — more than twice that 
ever attempted by the College in any earlier campaign — a good measure 
of confidence prevailed, thanks to a strong growth during the 1950s in 
120 annual giving, legacies, and foundation and corporate support. Above 



all, the alumnae, who had not been in the habit of making large gifts to Seventy-fifth 

the College, now seemed ready to join in a major effort to improve Anniversary Campaign 
Goucher's financial condition. The national campaign organization was 
headed by John A. Luetkemeyer, then vice president of the Equitable 
Trust Company of Baltimore and a valued trustee who later became 
chairman of the board. By this time the Alumnae Association was work- 
ing closely with the administration and most directly with the College 
Development Office. Together, the Alumnae and Development Offices 
spent months identifying and training those who were to serve in leader- 
ship roles. 

The campaign began auspiciously, but suddenly in the fall of 1958, 
on the day the College had invited two hundred outstanding corporate 
and institutional leaders of Baltimore City for a carefully planned cam- 
paign dinner. President Kraushaar suffered a totally unforeseen heart at- 
tack that eliminated his participation for several months. Despite his ab- 
sence, the campaign went on, thanks largely to Mr. John Luetkemeyer, 
the national chairman, who took to the road in President Kraushaar's 
stead. By the time the national phase began in January i960, the cam- 
paign had gathered sufficient momentum to raise nearly three million 
dollars. 

By January President Kraushaar had recovered sufficiently to keep his 
engagement to talk from a Cleveland alumnae dinner by closed-circuit 
radio to alumnae dinner groups all over the country. The Cleveland 
dinner was well attended, but Dr. Kraushaar felt weak since it was his 
first engagement as a speaker to a large gathering since his heart attack. 
Later he began to gain strength as he visited major cities in Indiana, 
Ohio, Michigan, and Illinois. The way had been carefully prepared in 
each city for the solicitation of certain major Goucher alumnae pros- 
pects, and as a result of these direct solicitations the campaign was 
enriched by over $100,000. 

Although the campaign had gotten off to a strong beginning in 1 9 5 7, 
thanks mainly to an outstanding gift of $462,000 from the estate of 
Addison E. Mulligan and substantial gifts from several trustees and 
overseers, progress was slow through 1958 and the early months of 
1959. By late April i960, with the general phase of the campaign fully 
launched, subscriptions had reached approximately $3,800,000 — still 
far short of the goal. Serious doubts arose about the successful outcome 
within the allotted time: the closing date was June 3 o of that year. Then, 
suddenly, a cluster of exceptional gifts brightened the outlook. In early 
May George and Elizabeth Todd of Rochester, New York, approached 
the College with a plan for establishing an endowment of $3 50,000 for 
a distinguished professorship."* In May Mary Baker (Mrs. William G.), a 
trustee who had already given $100,000, pledged an additional 
$200,000 as an inducement to others to help bring the campaign to a 
successful conclusion. A week later the daughters of Mr. and Mrs. 
William T. Haebler (two of whom had served in succession as trustees) 
gave a gift of $300,000 for the construction of a chapel as a memorial to 
their parents. Mr. and Mrs. Hugo Dalsheimer, taking note of this up- 
surge of giving, pledged $50,000 on top of an initial subscription of 
$67,000, and other trustees and overseers, determined that the effort 
must succeed, also resubscribed to help swell the total. 

Meanwhile, the rising tide of gifts from alumnae, parents, and 121 



friends, many from former students who were giving to Goucher for the 
first time, and others from persons who were repeating generous earlier 
donations, carried the campaign to within sight of the goal by early 
June. All told, 62 percent of the alumnae contributed to the fund — a 
good omen for the future of the institution. They were, as a group, in 
company with Goucher parents, credited with subscriptions of over 
$2,200,000, more than seven times the largest amount contributed by 
alumnae in any earlier campaign and more than twice the total alumnae 
contribution to all previous campaigns in Goucher's history. 

As a result of the sudden surge over the finish line, the reunion of 
i960 was a particularly joyous occasion. John Luetkemeyer announced 
to a record-breaking audience of jubilant alumnae that the Anniversary 
Fund had passed the $5 million mark — a triumphant conclusion to 
three and a half years of hard work that began quietly with careful 
attention to leadership, planning, and organization, gained momentum 
slowly, and then rose suddenly at the end until it reached and passed the 
goal. 

The success of the 75th Anniversary Campaign was particularly im- 
portant in light of the frustration left over from the dragging out of the 
1950 campaign. This earlier drive was intended to last two years but 
actually stretched out for almost four. The income from the 75th cam- 
paign made possible the completion of the campus as well as improve- 
ments in faculty salaries, scholarship resources, and the general endow- 
ment fund. 

"Before the jubilation over the 75th Anniversary Fund had com- 
pletely subsided," writes Dr. Kraushaar, "the Ford Foundation notified 
us that we were to be among the first twelve recipients of the major 
college aid program with a grant of $1,200,000 — if we could match 
that sum within two years. "^ Harry Casey and 1 had laid the groundwork 
for that grant during the late stages of the 75th Anniversary Fund cam- 
paign. I wondered at first what the reaction of the trustees might be to 
the necessity of waging another matching fund campaign just after the 
conclusion of the 75th. Everyone had been strained to the limit; none- 
theless, quite undaunted, the trustees were enormously heartened, and 
the matching fund was raised easily within the allotted time. Thus, in 
effect, the proceeds from the 75 th Anniversary Fund, the Ford grant, and 
the matching fund made the College richer by about eight million dol- 
lars, which enabled us to plan the immediate next steps with far greater 
confidence than before. 

"This financial underpinning of the College made all sorts of things 
possible, including striking advances in the physical additions to the 
College, most notably the College Center building which had already 
been envisaged in concept and whose plans were in the hands of its 
architect, Pietro Belluschi. During the next few years, faculty salaries 
advanced by substantial increments until, by 1965, Goucher stood in 
the upper tenth of faculty salaries of all colleges and universities in the 
United States as recorded in the annual reports of the American Associa- 
tion of University Professors. And the upsurge in scholarship resources 
brought about a much needed increase in minority students as well as 
other students unable to pay the rising college fees. In sum, the concen- 
trated fund-raising activities, beginning in 1957 and extending into 



1961-62, moved the College to distinctly higher ground in virtually Seventy-fifth 

every significant dimension and by every sound academic measure."* Anniversary Campaign 



With the approach of the 75th Anniversary Campaign, scheduled for The j^th Anniversary 
i960, planning began as early as 1956 for the celebration of seventy-five Celebration 
years of the College's history. A committee was appointed which de- 
cided, after much deliberation and discussion, to adopt as the theme of 
the celebration: Human Values in the Emerging American City.^ "1 felt 
happy about the choice," Dr. Kraushaar comments. "Though Goucher 
had left the city and its problems behind in a physical way, we still 
retained a strong desire to be thought of as a part of Baltimore, especial- 
ly part of the city's urban culture. We had already begun talking about 
the building of a College Center, including a suitable auditorium which 
would invite people from the neighborhoods and the city to cultural 
programs of the highest order; we thought of Goucher in this respect as 
having a special kind of cultural responsibility to the city and its people 
in return for their financial support. 

"The Committee took some unusual steps to make sure that the 
discussion of the problem of cities would not become mired in technical 
considerations about architecture, engineering, urban renewal, re- 
development, and traffic handling, for it had in mind focusing on the 
fundamental questions of human needs and aspirations, and whether 
and how these could be satisfied by the emerging modern American city. 
Accordingly, the Committee planned a series of six seminars and invited 
as participants ten leaders of the Baltimore community, five members of 
the Goucher faculty, and five Goucher undergraduates. Each two-hour 
session was addressed by a speaker of national renown in city planning 
and urban affairs. The aim was to create an atmosphere of intimacy 
between the speakers and the twenty members of the seminars, with the 
hope of creating a situation conducive to high concentration and intense 
thinking. 

"I had a direct and keen interest in these proceedings because I had 
been, since 1954, a member of the Planning Council of the Greater 
Baltimore Committee, made up mainly of laymen, whose purpose was 
to review the proposed plans of architects, engineers, and city planners 
for the renovation of Baltimore's inner city, first the Charles Center area, 
then the Inner Harbor area. The seminars had a direct bearing on the 
work of the Planning Council."^ 

The interest generated by the seminars and the two-day conference 
led to a variety of campus activities devoted to aspects of the general 
theme. "Faculty shop talks, a series of student programs on 'Religion in 
the City,' a symposium: 'Do the Arts Need the City?', exhibitions, com- 
petitions, book lists, lectures, group discussions, and a new emphasis on 
urban problems in appropriate courses in the curriculum, all contrib- 
uted to shaping the sense of importance of this vital issue and increasing 
the intellectual vigor of campus discussion."*^ 

Once the program had run its course on the Goucher campus and in 
Baltimore, it was made available to alumnae leaders in other cities in an 
adapted form. With the help of a grant from the Fund for Adult Educa- 
tion, an arm of the Ford Foundation, the College assisted alumnae 123 



leaders in ten urban centers to conduct study-discussion groups whose 
aim was raising the level of civic intelligence and individual participa- 
tion in dealing with the changing urban environment within which 
people must work for the realization of human values. Another out- 
growth was the publication of a book by the University of Pittsburgh 
Press, Human Values in the Emerging American City, made up of the 
outstanding seminar lectures, selected discussions, and an extensive 
bibliography. 

"The nature and quality of our 75th Anniversary Celebration dem- 
onstrated several important points about a libera! arts education," con- 
cludes President Kraushaar. "First, it showed that a liberal arts college 
has the capacity to step outside its role of educating a selected number of 
students in order to grapple with an important current public question 
in such a way as to be a direct influence on the community in which the 
college resides. Second, it infused the thinking of Goucher's faculty, 
students, and staff with a sense of the urgency and importance of coping 
with the problems of urban decay and deterioration and made clear that 
this was indeed an appropriate object of concern for liberal education. 
Third, it demonstrated that Goucher College in particular, as a center of 
fresh thought and influence, had a sense of its special responsibility 
toward the Baltimore community." 



ELEVEN 



Controversies 
and Dilemmas 



K 



ko college president who held 
office for nineteen years could expect to sail smoothly through nearly 
two decades with no storms to rock the boat, and President Kraushaar 
had his full share of ethical and political controversies. This chapter 
presents three examples: first, the question of the admission of black 
students to the College; next, the dilemma of whether or not the College 
should accept government aid, as a result of the National Defense Edu- 
cation Act of 1958, which contained a student loan provision requiring 
the applicant to sign a disclaimer affidavit; and finally, the controversy 
that arose from what came to be known as the Chaplain's Sex Sermon. 



One of the earliest ethical problems that faced Dr. Kraushaar, the ques- Ethnic and Racial 
tion of racial discrimination against black students in terms of admis- Discrimination 
sion to the College, was really a sequel to a similar dilemma that had 
arisen in the thirties. 

According to Professor Kenneth O. Walker,' President Robertson 
had been a true idealist and pioneer in the matter of ending discrimina- 
tion against Jewish students. He insisted on an open admission policy 
that would set no ceiling on the number of Jews the College would 
accept. President Kraushaar continued the same policy. According to 
Martha A. Nichols, dean emeritus of students, at no time in her experi- 
ence did the College administration ever set standards for admission on 
grounds other than the students' potential for academic growth. From 
among the candidates meeting those standards, the Admissions Com- 
mittee always attempted to enroll a student population of diversity, 
religious and geographic. - 

Like President Robertson, President Kraushaar held liberal views on 
the matter of racial discrimination, but when he took office, the College 



was beset with more problems than it could handle gracefully, and he 
hesitated to initiate a potentially divisive controversy over the admission 
of a black student. 

Nonetheless, the issue soon arose. One day in the fall of 195 1, a well- 
dressed and well-spoken black woman came to the president's office and 
asked for a conference. She introduced herself as the mother of a daugh- 
ter who would be ready for college the following fall and inquired about 
Goucher's policy toward black applicants. She was herself a graduate of 
Radcliffe College. Dr. Kraushaar told her of his sympathy for the educa- 
tion of black students, a matter which he had discussed extensively with 
the heads of the National Negro Scholarship and Service Fund, an 
organization devoted to gaining admission to white colleges and raising 
scholarship funds for deserving black students. He said that if it were his 
decision to make, he would certainly urge her daughter to apply, but he 
also cautioned her that he would have to clear the question with the 
Board of Trustees. 

"I brought up the matter at a meeting of the full Board on October 
22, 195 1," writes President Kraushaar. "A very long and interesting but 
indecisive discussion of the question ensued. The moving spirit in the 
conversation was Judge Morris Soper, a highly regarded jurist who had 
been chairman of the Board of Morgan State College for many years.^ 
He encouraged a full and free exploration of the question, and most of 
the trustees present participated in it. Though I had hoped the outcome 
might be a motion to declare that Goucher admitted students without 
regard for race or color, that did not happen. The minutes of that 
meeting note — only at the very end — that 'following a full discussion, 
decision was deferred until such time as an application has been re- 
ceived.' 

"When I informed the lady with whom I had conferred about the 
outcome of the Trustee's debate, she was understandably indignant and 
wrote a letter of stinging rebuke which spared neither the College, nor 
the trustees, nor me. As she saw the situation, we were asking her 
daughter to go through the entire application process for admission to 
Goucher College without any assurance that she would not be rejected 
as a Goucher student simply because she was black. The letter was a 
masterpiece of its kind, and I took some pleasure in reading it aloud at a 
meeting of the trustee Executive Committee. That rebuke made me all 
the more determined to cross the bridge of desegregating the College as 
swiftly as possible. 

"Ultimately, another black candidate applied, and when I took to the 
Executive Committee of the Board the completed application along 
with the recommendation of the College Admissions Committee that 
the student was in every way qualified, they voted to accept her. They 
followed this commendable action with a recommendation to the full 
Board that admission to Goucher College should not be judged on a 
basis of race, color, or creed. '' 

"All during the fifties, recruiting the kind of young black women who 
could cope with Goucher's demanding academic program remained 
difficult for Goucher, a task complicated by the need of most applicants 
for full scholarship support. Scholarship funds, especially for a four- 
year program, were in critically short supply through most of the fifties, 
particularly after the Ford Foundation's early admission scholarship 



funds had been exhausted. There was also keen competition among 
institutions for able black students. By the sixties, however, scholarship 
availability had improved and the situation entered into a more mature 
phase. "^ 

Many students were strongly supportive of desegregation in all facets 
of society. Some took part in demonstrations at theaters, restaurants, 
and stores and were frequently placed under arrest. The office of the 
Dean of Students soon learned to handle bail funds and to advise stu- 
dents on court hearings. 



Controversies and 
Dilemmas 



A dilemma confronted the Board of Trustees repeatedly in the fifties and 
sixties: whether or not to accept any form of state or federal aid. The 
trustees debated this issue as early as 1954 because they did not want 
Goucher, a private institution of higher learning, to accept any funds 
with undesirable strings attached that might lead to government direc- 
tion.* In a meeting of the Executive Committee on October 1 1 President 
K'-aushaar raised the question of considering direct aid from the State of 
Maryland for new construction such as residence halls or indirect aid in 
the form of scholarships. He noted that several other independent 
schools were receiving state assistance. Mr. Walter Sondheim, Jr. and 
Judge Niles spoke strongly against the College's involving itself in any 
way with any government agency.^ 

On October 5,1959, however, to proceed with an essential extension 
to the science building, the Executive Committee approved a unan- 
imous recommendation by a special committee on government aid to 
education that the president be authorized to proceed with plans for 
such an extension, with the understanding that the College would apply 
for a grant of $250,000 from the National Institutes of Health. At the 
same meeting the Executive Committee decided that Goucher would 
not participate in the Maryland State Scholarship program because of 
basic inequities in the program itself.^ On January 4, 1 960, the commit- 
tee decided not to change Goucher's stand on government aid; the 
College would not accept a state grant for the science building, even 
though such financing would insure the success of the 75th Anniversary 
Campaign. 

The Executive Committee modified this position on September 26 
when the committee agreed to borrow $575,000 from the Housing and 
Home Finance Agency of the United States of America and to add 
$205,000 to produce the $780,000 needed to build the first house and 
the infirmary to be incorporated into Residence Hall No. 4. A month 
later, at a meeting of the full Board of Trustees, Mr. Vernon Eney pro- 
posed that a committee study the question of how to avoid governmen- 
tal interference in the College's affairs.^ 

By 1963 the situation had changed somewhat. President Kraushaar 
pointed out to the Board of Trustees on February 23 that in i960 the 
trustees had agreed that Goucher should not seek state aid because the 
College's promotional literature declared opposition to state aid to edu- 
cation. But now. Dr. Kraushaar observed, it seems "no longer a question 
of principle, but rather a matter of working with those forces which will 
aid education without restrictive limits."'" He explained that the Col- 
lege was considering asking for a sizable grant from the Maryland State 



Government Aid 
to Education 



Legislature, which had, in the recent past, made such grants to other 
independent institutions including Loyola College and the Johns 
Hopkins University. The Board agreed to authorize Mr. Luetkemeyer to 
proceed with a request for aid to the legislature. 

On January 6, 1964, the Executive Committee approved a resolution 
from the Committee on Government Aid to Education to be presented 
to the full board on February Z9. The board adopted the following 
resolution: 

The President of the College is instructed to report annually to the Board 
of Trustees on faculty research activity, however financed, within the institu- 
tion. He will report also on the prior year's experience with all goverment- 
aided programs. 

The President will also bring to the attention of the Trustees any change in 
the pattern of government support which, in his opinion, may compromise 
the academic or financial integrity of the College. 

New programs of government assistance in which the administration 
wishes to participate and which represent a departure from accepted pat- 
terns will be referred to the Trustees for approval. 

It is the sense of the Board that it should not accept governmental support 
under conditions which would jeopardize the freedom of the College or to 
the extent that withdrawal of the support would jeopardize the program of 
the College. 

Unfortunately, this last position could not be long maintained. 
Goucher, like most institutions, soon found that refusal to accept gov- 
ernmental support would place the institutional program in jeopardy. 
Some years later, Mr. Eney himself acknowledged the inevitabilty of this 
dependence on federal aid. 

On February 7, 1966, President Kraushaar informed the Executive 
Committee that, assuming the College received one-third of the money 
necessary for the fine arts building, the library addition, and the science 
lecture hall from the federal government, the governor would ask the 
Maryland General Assembly to provide a state matching grant of 
$510,000. On April 4 the president told the committee that the bill 
authorizing the grant had passed the state legislature the week before, 
but when the College decided to defer construction of the fine arts 
building, it was obliged to decline these funds. 



The Notorious "Being always short of scholarship and student aid funds," writes Dr. 

Disclaimer Affidavit Kraushaar, "we welcomed the loan provision of the National Defense 
Education Act of 1958, but after we had administered it for a number of 
months, the dean came into my office one day and asked, 'Have you read 
what the students must sign to secure these loans?'" After scrutinizing 
the text of the disclaimer affidavit closely, she and 1 both agreed that for 
our federal government to assume the possible guilt of students seeking 
loans and to require applicants to remove this assumption by signing the 
disclaimer affidavit was peculiar, even sinister. After all, did not farmers 
and businessmen receive large sums of money under various govern- 
ment programs without having to sign a statement attesting to their 
patriotism?'' 

"By this time 1 was also receiving some letters from colleagues at 

128 other institutions inquiring whether or not we would administer the 



disclaimer affidavit; they were considering dropping the student loan 
program until the disclaimer affidavit was removed. After making some 
inquiries, 1 discovered about fifteen colleges that had rejected the stu- 
dent loan funds until such time as Congress took action to remove the 
affidavit. The dean and I decided, albeit with somewhat heavy hearts 
because we desperately needed the funds, to recommend to the Execu- 
tive Committee of the Board that Goucher join them.'^ 

"Soon, the media began to publicize lists of the colleges who were 
refusing to administer the disclaimer affidavit. Comprised largely of 
small liberal arts colleges with a sprinkling of public institutions, the 
lists included none of the big prestigious universities, such as Harvard, 
Princeton, or Yale. Before long, however, they, too, began making noises 
about the disclaimer affidavit, and more and more publicity resulted as a 
consequence of the growing debate. At first I feared that rejecting the 
student loan funds because of the disclaimer affidavit would seem to 
substantiate the charge that Goucher had leftist leanings. But as the 
controversy grew, for a college or university to appear on the list became 
something of a badge of honor. Eventually, their consciences sufficiently 
pricked by the growing protests, the Ivy League colleges prevailed on 
then Senator John F. Kennedy to introduce in the Senate a repeal of the 
disclaimer affidavit. This accomplished, we happily welcomed the stu- 
dent loan funds. "'■♦ 



Controversies and 
Dilemmas 



The controversy that generated the most strident reactions during Presi- 
dent Kraushaar's tenure of office did not involve politics at all; it was the 
commotion caused by what came to be known as the Chaplain's Sex 
Sermon. The College chaplain at the time was a young Episcopal clergy- 
man, Frederick Wood. "A bright and attractive young man," comments 
Dr. Kraushaar, "very liberal in his outlook on all questions, including 
theological ones. Dr. Wood came to us at a time when many young 
theologians were exploring 'situation ethics.' In general and over- 
simplified terms, their position was that there are no absolute rules or 
laws governing particular behavior; they proposed that moral decisions 
depend upon the whole situation and how it affects the various partici- 
pants in it.!'' Though the young theologians' arguments with absolute 
morality most certainly arose from sound concerns, less sophisticated 
thinkers — like college students — might interpret such reasoning as a 
justification for the sexual permissiveness that was just then beginning 
to manifest itself. 

"I attended Chapel the Sunday morning when the Chaplain gave the 
sermon that caused the prolonged controversy that involved our trustees 
and alumnae and furnished a prime topic for conversation in Baltimore 
for the next several months. I sat at the Chapel service and wondered 
whether repercussions might ensue. Dr. Wood regularly mimeographed 
his sermons, and he made no exception in this case. I wondered what 
would happen if a copy got into the hands of a newspaper reporter. After 
weeks passed I had all but forgotten the sermon; then, one day, coming 
home from a trip to New York, I picked up the Evening Sun and found a 
full column on Fred Wood's sermon, much quoted directly from his text. 
The next morning, the New York Times also devoted a full column to 
the sermon, including many quotations. For the next two months I 



The Chaplain': 
Sex Sermon 



could find almost no time for my normal duties. 1 had to spend most of 
my days trying to develop ways to repair the apparent damage. Letters 
poured in by the hundreds from alumnae and from unknown people 
who berated the College for permitting such an outrage. Our clipping 
service brought literally bales of articles from all over the country. This 
went on for five or six weeks until finally the flood of mail began to 
abate. Interestingly we heard from people, among them a substantial 
sampling of our alumnae, who praised the Chaplain for speaking out so 
frankly on a question that is usually swept under the rug. 

"The course I took, after hours of consultation with my staff and 
with the Rev. Guthrie Speers, our former Chaplain, was to emphasize 
the positive elements of the sermon. The Chaplain had tried to view the 
sexual conduct of young people from the perspective of situation ethics. 
He was saying, in effect, that while there is no absolute right or wrong in 
sexual matters, individuals should behave in a thoroughly responsible 
way with respect to all parties involved. In expounding this view, he had 
made statements about homosexuality, premarital intercourse, and oth- 
er highly controversial subjects, clearly indicating that while he did not 
condemn, neither did he endorse such conduct categorically; his point 
was that the tightness or wrongness of moral decisions depends upon 
the sensitivity and responsibility exercised by the parties concerned. 
Perhaps because Dr. Wood was exploring new ways to understand sin, 
because his sermon did not present the concept of sin in traditional 
terms, many readers reacted to the sermon as an endorsement of total 
permissiveness. 

"I undertook to answer every one of the hundreds of letters that were 
addressed to my office about the sermon. In each instance, I emphasized 
the positive points in the sermon and I sometimes referred to the 'new 
theology' which Dr. Wood represented. Sometimes my reply would 
prompt another letter, and I even made some converts. Finally, Guthrie 
Speers, Harry Casey, Martha Nichols, and I drafted a long letter that 
went out to all alumnae, whether or not they had written to me directly. 
That, of course, had the effect of bringing the sermon to the attention of 
those alumnae who had somehow missed the earlier publicity. On the 
whole, the reaction to the general letter was positive and the tide began 
to turn. We received notes from older alumnae saying, in effect, that 
when they were in college they had received absolutely no guidance in 
the matter of sex, a lack which they considered deplorable, and they 
commended the College for addressing this important matter openly. 

"All the same, the worst was yet to come in the form of a dispute in 
the Executive Committee of our trustees. A small faction there, certainly 
a minority, favored clearing the air by firing Fred Wood. 1 defended him 
in every way I could on the basis of my long-standing conviction con- 
cerning freedom of teaching and expression. Furthermore, I was well 
aware that, if he were fired, I would have a full-scale protest by both 
faculty and students on my hands. Faculty and students seemed to 
regard the sermon as simply one approach to morality, and they took it 
in stride. Well liked and generally respected among the faculty, Fred 
Wood also enjoyed the regard of the students. The case did not involve 
any consideration of tenure, for Fred, by the nature of his position, was 
not eligible for tenure. Some trustees on the Executive Committee, how- 
ever, would not let the matter rest. They kept coming back to ask what 1 



would do about Fred Wood. I realized that only some drastic action 
would quiet these critics, so I finally brought the matter to a head by 
stating that, if the Executive Committee succeeded in passing a motion 
to compel me to fire Fred Wood, my resignation would be on the table 
immediately. This was the only time during my Goucher years that I ever 
made that threat, and I made it knowing in my heart that the dissidents 
lacked the votes to pass a motion of that kind. 1 left the room while they 
debated the issue, but 1 was soon called back. That was the last I heard of 
the Fred Wood case at meetings of the Executive Committee.'* 

"As the months went by, 1 saw that Fred Wood's sermon had indeed 
done some damage. Our applications for admission were down the 
following year, and although other factors may have been involved, I am 
convinced that Goucher's image suffered somewhat in the eyes of pro- 
spective applicants and their parents. Even if this was the case, it did not 
last long. In retrospect I realize why. General sexual permissiveness was 
spreading rapidly all over the United States; by the end of the decade, the 
sermon which had aroused such strong reactions in the middle sixties 
seemed to offer rather unremarkable observations about sexual con- 
duct. Ironically, according to Fred Wood's account, he had given the 
identical sermon two years earlier at Cornell University where it attract- 
ed no particular attention. I concluded that the public expected a college 
for women to reflect a higher standard of morality than it expected from 
the community in general. Any kind of scandal at a women's college, but 
especially one involving sexual behavior, has far more news value than 
the same event would have if it occurred in a large coed university or in a 
college for men." 



TWELVE 



Student Life in 
the Kraushaar Era 



R 



The New Campus M ^Recognizing the profound im- 

and the Youth Culture pact on student life and College traditions of the move from an urban to 
as Reshapers a "rural" campus. President Kraushaar comments in his reminiscences 

of Gaucher Traditions on this change as it shaped the lives of students during his administra- 
tion. "As every architect knows," he observes, "and as the differences 
between the old downtown Goucher and the new Towson campus illus- 
trate, physical surroundings significantly affect human behavior. Down- 
town, students walked out the front doors of their dormitories to shops, 
drugstores, restaurants, but also to the hazards of high density urban 
living. On the new campus, they walked out of their dormitories to 
grassy slopes, trees, and neatly planted landscapes. During the last 
stages of the transition from downtown Baltimore, a few students ex- 
pressed their regret at leaving the conveniences that a city can provide. 
On the new campus the College had to supply the facilities necessary for 
student recreation, social life, and entertainment that the city had pre- 
viously furnished. 

"Of all the constituencies of the College, the students especially felt 
the move. The collegiate village we all were striving to build on the 
Towson campus implied a degree of self-sufficiency never required on 
the downtown campus. I repeatedly reminded the trustees that on the 
new campus we had to build our own roads, our own lighting system, 
our own security system; we had to stock the bookstore with cosmetics, 
toiletries, and other supplies students had not needed from the down- 
town College, where stores were on the same street or just around the 
corner. Of course, the new campus afforded almost unlimited oppor- 
tunities for physical recreation and sports, but we could realize that 
potential only by putting a substantial amount of planning and money 
into tennis courts, hockey fields, stables, bridle paths, and picnic 
132 grounds.' In short, the requirements of student life on the new campus 




Mary Fisher Hall dining room, mid-1950s 



greatly increased the role of the College as planner and provider of 
resources for which, in the downtown situation, it had little responsibil- 
ity. Moreover, the new sylvan setting quickly put to the test old College 
traditions that had developed in the urban environment. Many of these 
survived quite unchanged for some years; others disappeared, some 
rapidly, some slowly. 

"One of my first direct responsibilities in connection with the social 
life of the students required that I oversee the closing of the sororities 
which had flourished on the Goucher campus for many years. These 
organizations provided a limited but useful social outlet for their mem- 
bers but, unfortunately, made non-members feel excluded. Under the 
leadership of certain alumnae and members of the faculty (notably 
Gertrude Bussey, professor of philosophy), during Dr. Robertson's last 
years the College conducted a thorough and democratic canvass of all 
College constituencies to determine whether the sororities should be 
continued on the new campus or abolished. I should add that the so- 
rorities' physical facilities usually consisted of little more than a rented 
floor and a furnished clubroom in a nearby townhouse where members 
could meet to hold dances and parties. To fill part of the gap left by the 
sororities, the plan for the primary social unit in Towson featured the 
House, a student residence for forty to fifty students, with a residential 



The Kraushaar apartment for a faculty or staff member. Each Hall, a cluster of three to 

Administration five Houses, would have its own dining room. Thus, the dormitory 

House became the key to the students' social life on the new campus. 
After experimenting with it on the old campus, Martha Nichols and 
Frances R. Conner could both contribute significantly to planning the 
House system. 

"In the fall of 1 94 8, the residential student body consisted of students 
living on the new campus in the four houses of Mary Fisher Hall and the 
first two houses of what later became Anna Heubeck Hail, and those 
living in downtown dormitories. Considering the circumstances, the 
spirit among the students was remarkably good. During the bus rides 
back and forth between the two campuses, they sang songs to make the 
trip as enjoyable as possible for themselves and the commuting faculty. 

"All through the fifties the exigencies of the building program forced 
us to make do with inadequate space for student activities. The snack 
bar first occupied the 'air raid shelter' of Mary Fisher Hall until it was 
relocated in the College Center. Jammed into the same 'air raid shelter,' 
inadequate for even one facility, was the Bookstore, which subsequently 
moved first to the basement of the Julia Rogers Library and eventually to 
the College Center. Until they could make the same move, the Post Office 
and the Student Activities Offices functioned for many years in the 
basement of one of the houses of Anna Heubeck Hall. 

"Providing a suitable reception area for day students remained a 
problem that we never solved to everyone's satisfaction. On the down- 
town campus, day students simply went to the buildings in which they 
had scheduled classes or appointments and then returned home. Be- 
cause there were a number of small commercial restaurants and coffee 
shops in the immediate area, no snack bar was needed. With Van Meter 
Hall completed, a small day students' lounge — too small and, being 
deep inside the building, difficult to reach — proved quite inadequate. 




Students in snack bar, 1957 




That space later became the Computer Center once the day students' 
lounge in the College Center became available. 

"Frequently, 1 heard the students complain that moving to the Tow- 
son campus established a greater distance from the men at the Hopkins, 
the major social outlet for Goucher students. At the time, we ran five 
large buses during the day and several during the evening between Tow- 
son and the city. We did our best to keep the fares low, even to the point 
of subsidizing them, because we realized their importance to the stu- 
dents in maintaining social relations with friends and for recreation and 
entertainment in the city. 

"While this socializing pleased the students, some headaches for us 
ensued. Holding the line on drinking alcoholic beverages soon became a 
problem, one complicated because at various times state law adjusted 
the age limit for drinking. Although we wanted to enforce the law, to do 
so was extremely difficult in Towson; students could drink in parked 
cars or unlighted picnic areas on our large campus. Dean Nichols and I 
were well aware that policing such activities would be impossible, so we 
tried our best to make the students themselves responsible. We heard 
occasional rumblings, but the problem never got out of control or 
brought us into the orbit of a serious police investigation. In general, the 
students behaved well; they rarely embarrassed themselves, their par- 
ents, or the College. 

"It has long been part of the philosophy of residential schools and 
colleges that much of the students' education takes place outside the 
classroom proper, and that the residential life, the participation in com- 
munity activities, and the sense of belonging and of loyalty to the institu- 
tion are valuable components of a college education. For that reason, we 
lost no opportunity to keep reminding the students of the varied ele- 
ments of college life and pointing out to them that their failure to take an 
interest or participate in extracurricular activities would short-change 




Musical group, 1950s 



them. I appealed also to my administrative staff officers to involve the 
students more actively in student government, religious activities, clubs 
and organizations, class meetings, and all appropriate campus endeav- 
ors outside the classroom-studio-laboratory orbit. 

"We had to work at this constantly. We revived the tradition of the 
boat ride to Tolchester Beach. Held somewhat irregularly in the past, 
this event struck me as a great way to bring faculty, students, and admin- 
istrative staff together for a day of relaxation and fun. Attendance at the 
boat ride ranged from about two-thirds to three-quarters of the student 
body, rather good participation considering that the event required a 
Saturday afternoon and evening at an especially busy time of the year. 
The trip back by moonlight, usually the most spirited event of the day, 
included a songfest led by students. Memories of the boat rides are 
among my happiest of the Goucher years. We kept up this annual event 
until Tolchester Beach became a suburban housing development. Un- 
able to find a suitable replacement, we abandoned the boat ride tradi- 
tion in the early sixties. 

"The undergraduates of the immediate post-war generation were not 
rebellious; in fact, the press frequently referred to them as the 'Silent 
Generation.' Goucher students did their best to sustain earlier Goucher 
traditions, some clearly dated and rather Victorian in nature,- others no 
longer useful or difficult to maintain. Some student traditions could, of 
course, move to Towson without significant impairment or alteration. 
Student government, for example, long a solid tradition at Goucher, 
underwent little change during the early years, although it later evolved 
significantly — more as a consequence of the youth culture than of the 
move. Similarly, the student publications notably the Goucher Weekly, 
made the move intact since their only requirement, some office space, 
posed no large problem. The College literary magazine, known as Kal- 




Anna Heubeck Hall, lunch, 1950s 

ends, had been replaced in 1940 by the Dilettante, which was sup- 
planted in 1949 by Venture, itself succeeded in 1958 by Preface. 

"Relations with Weekly changed rapidly as we went into the sixties. 
Although Mrs. Nichols and I continued our open-door policy to report- 
ers and editors, a new tone of criticism colored articles and editorials, 
which reflected the changes taking place in young people's attitudes. 
The daily newspaper press and national magazines corroborated the 
changes in attitudes we noted in our students. Mrs. Nichols and 1 spent 
hours with Weekly reporters and editors during the early and middle 
sixties explaining why the College did things in certain ways, talking 
about our plans and next steps, and answering numerous questions, 
often only to discover in the next Weekly, when it came out, the shrill 
tone we had been trying to avoid. We sometimes felt disheartened when 
Weekly appeared to ignore most of what we had discussed with the 
student reporters and editors. By the mid-sixties I almost dreaded seeing 
a fresh copy of Weekly dropped on my desk on a Friday afternoon 
because of the harsh statements about the College that I had come to 
expect in its columns. Never personal, the newspaper attacked 'the 
administration.' I seldom took the editors or reporters to task for the 
content of these articles. I realized they were writing for the student 
body, not for the administration." 



While the students may have become radicalized in the 1960s, they were 
still thoroughly Republican in 1948. A presidential straw vote, spon- 
sored by the Political Science Club and reported by Weekly in its issue of 
October 29, 1948, showed Dewey winning in a landslide: 

Dewey 261 



Truman 


47 


Wallace 


46 


Thurmond 


12 



Probably unaware of an earlier Goucher tradition concerning Nor- 
man Thomas, the writer of the lead article on the straw vote assessed his 



Further Notes on 
the Student Scene 




Wheelbarrow race. Fathers' Day, 1956 



Strength as indicating "a sense of awkwardness on the part of the stu- 
dents toward the two major candidates." The writer assumed without 
any reservation that Dewey would win the real election. 

The Gaucher Weekly, which had dropped the word College from its 
name in 1948, maintained in the fifties a tone and range of interests not 
markedly different from those of the forties,' while Donnybrook Fair 
reached the pinnacle, winning in 1947 and 1948 the All America rating, 
highest award of the National Scholastic Press Association.'* 

The year 195 1 witnessed the beginning of a tradition that has lasted 
to the present, though under a different name. What we now call Par- 
ents' Weekend began as Dad's Day, and Weekly made it very clear that 
mothers were not particularly welcome. Since students feared that some 
mothers would interfere with the main event — a formal dance for fa- 
thers and daughters only — the organizers of "Dad's Day" made sepa- 
rate provisions for them. While their husbands and offspring were glid- 
ing across the dance floor, "mothers," wrote Weekly with unusual 
terseness, "may play bridge."' 

The editors of Weekly pursued their interest in presidential politics in 
the fifties, but they broke with their tradition of remaining non-partisan 
when, on October 17, t95Z, they printed in a front-page editorial a 
ringing endorsement of Adlai Stevenson. Nonetheless, when the usual 
poll was conducted on October 3 1, Eisenhower won the election.'' With 
477 voting, (306 Republicans, 169 Democrats, and two other parties 
receiving one vote each), the results were: 



Eisenhower 
Stevenson 



Students 
(%) 
64 
36 



Faculty 
(%) 
49 
51 



Staff 

(%) 
77 
23 




Waiting in line, 1950s 



Weekly continued its support of Stevenson in 1956, but conducted no 
straw vote. 

The year 1955 was a year for singing. First, the Octet (later to become 
the Reverend's Rebels) was organized. Next, the College's Alma Mater, 
"E Longinquo," written in 191 1 by William Hersey Hopkins (then 
professor of classics but earlier the College's first president), found itself 
under scrutiny. After receiving complaints based on the vocal range and 
Latin text of "E Longinquo," the Students' Organization sponsored an 
Alma Mater Songfest in the Barn on April 13, 1955. The students were 
to choose an Alma Mater from among five songs, of which the other 
four were "O Goucher Fair and True," "Juventas" (a song from 
Goucher's 1926 songbook), and the senior and sophomore serious 
songs from the most recent Sing-Song. On April 22 Weekly announced 
that "E Longinquo" had won the contest, with "O Goucher Fair and 
True" a close second. The Reverend's Rebels repopularized "E Longin- 
quo" in 1980; they sang it on the lawn of the President's House — after a 
last-minute crash course on Latin pronunciation with Professors deFord 
and Musser during the picnic lunch — as part of the first celebration of 
one of Goucher's most recent traditions: GIG (Get into Goucher) Day. 
In ensuing years the "Rebs" performed "E Longinquo" frequently at 
commencements and other College festivities. 

In 1959, on the recommendation of the Class of 1959, an older 
tradition underwent a wise modification: the College moved the out- 



The Kraushaar 
Administration 



door commencement, held for many years at five o'clock in the after- 
noon, when spring thunderstorms are most likely to occur, to 10:30 in 
the morning7 

The major event of 1959 in student life was Goucher's competition in 
the CBS-TV "College Bowl," a program where students, representing 
various colleges and universities, competed with one another on succes- 
sive Sundays in a quiz that dealt with a wide range of factual information 
covering a seemingly unending array of subjects, many not normally 
part of any undergraduate curriculum. Speed of response was of the 
essence. To win the "Bowl" a single team had to defeat five successive 
opponents in as many weeks while moving from campus to campus — a 
schedule not conducive to ideal academic work at home during the 
period in which a given team stayed alive. 

Weekly announced Goucher's participation on April 24, 1959, and 
both the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees (through reports 
from President Kraushaar) and the College in general (via Weekly) fol- 
lowed the subsequent events breathlessly for the next month. Coached 
by Assistant Professor Rhoda Dorsey, Goucher's team won its first 
match in Minneapolis against the University of Minnesota on May 3; 
then, the following Sunday, on its own campus, Goucher beat the Uni- 
versity of Kentucky. The team next defeated Wayne State University, but 
then lost the fourth match to the City College of New York. The 
Goucher College Bowl team had nonetheless won $5,000 in scholar- 
ships in the course of these four weeks.** 

When the sixties arrived, students became far more conscious of 
social issues, first among these the matter of racial desegregation. In 
1 96 1 Goucher students were arrested in a sit-in at a local restaurant; in 
1963 nine Goucher students (with many from Morgan State College) 
were arrested in a protest against racial segregation at the Northwood 
Theatre.*^ Activism of this kind continued through the sixties, ranging 
from such undertakings as the combined efforts of faculty and students 
who joined in the 1962 peace demonstration in Washington against 
President Kennedy's policy in Cuba to the establishment in 1964, under 
student leadership, of an interracial coffee house in East Baltimore. 
Meanwhile, the push for freedom manifested itself in various ways 
on the campus, as well as in the community. In 1967, for example, fif- 
teen seniors gained authorization to live off-campus, with parental per- 
mission. '^ 



Major Cultural Long convinced that much of the education that takes place in a good 

Events at the College college occurs outside the classroom. President Kraushaar recognized 
the importance of bringing to campus men and women of the highest 
accomplishments in their chosen fields, not just for a formal lecture 
followed by a quick departure, but for a stay of two to four days. He 
hoped the longer visits would provide enough time for notable guests to 
meet informally with as many student groups as possible and give the 
students an opportunity to interact with celebrated scholars and artists 
at close range. The public lecture that the College always asked the 
visitors to deliver in addition to their other informal appearances was 
intended to edify the general public as well as the faculty and students. 
140 As a bonus, these formal lectures enhanced public relations for the 



College by keeping Goucher's name in the media in connection with 
events of exceptional quality. 

In the early part of the Kraushaar administration, before the College 
Center became available, the College gained considerable experience in 
putting on arts festivals, symposia, concerts, lectures, plays, and confer- 
ences under very trying physical conditions and in the almost total 
absence of proper facilities. "On the downtown campus," Dr. 
Kraushaar writes, "an auditorium in Catherine Hooper Hall seated 
approximately i,zoo, but rather uncomfortably. The stage was small, 
so small that it could not accommodate any substantial performing 
group. The students managed to put on some dramatic productions, but 
under cramped conditions that required a large amount of adaptation 
and improvisation. The auditorium was satisfactory for lectures, but it 
became virtually useless once the entire resident student body had 
moved to the new campus. 

"The next step — the first of several temporary measures — involved 
the creation of a general purpose space that seated approximately two 
hundred on the south end of the upper floor of Van Meter Hall. A 
completely graceless, minimal space, really nothing more than a large 
plain room, it afforded no real stage. The seating consisted of folding 
chairs that had to be set up and then removed for every special event. 
During the day, the area became two classrooms separated by a folding 
partition wall. Moreover, access to this room proved awkward for visi- 
tors to the campus since anyone attending a function there had to climb 
as many as three flights of stairs. 

"With the completion of the Lilian Welsh Gymnasium in 1953, 
though we had a new and much larger space, we still lacked a facility 
designed as an auditorium or a hall for the performing arts. Still, the 
Gymnasium could accommodate over a thousand persons, and we used 
it regularly for large lectures and for Commencement exercises held 
indoors because of inclement weather." 

As we have seen, the Barn, which seated three hundred, worked very 
well for smaller lectures and musical performances until it burned down 
shortly before completion of the College Center. 

"Once the new College Center auditorium and the smaller lecture 
hall had become available," Dr. Kraushaar comments, "for the first 
time in its modern history Goucher was well equipped to mount any- 
thing from lectures to full orchestras with chorus, not to mention plays, 
recitals, and movies. We could also provide adequate parking for our 
guests, easy access to the hall, comfortable seating with excellent sight 
lines, and good acoustics." 

In addition to improving the physical facilities for performances of all 
kinds, the College had to augment the financial resources available for 
public lectures and recitals. The catalog of 1 948 listed only seven named 
lectureships, representing a total endowment of approximately $40,000. 
Recognizing the need. President Kraushaar pursued the search for more 
endowed lectureships. When he left the College in 1967, the catalog 
listed thirteen named endowment funds for public lectures and recitals, 
and, even more important, the endowment for that purpose had grown 
to approximately $iZ5,ooo. The most notable additions during the 
Kraushaar years included the Elmore B. Jeffery Lectures in religion, the 
substantial Robertson Fund for lectures and performances in literature 



and the arts, the Howard S. Nulton Fund for lectures in international 
affairs, the Rosenberg Fund for lectures and recitals in the arts, chiefly 
music, and the Stimson Lectures in history. 

The number of celebrated speakers and performers from widely var- 
ied fields who appeared at Goucher during the Kraushaar era is so great 
that a brief list of the most notable must serve to represent the rest. 
Among the poets were Robert Frost, Stephen Spender, Archibald Mac- 
Leish, W. H. Auden, William Carlos Williams, Randall Jarrell, Mar- 
ianne Moore, Robert Lowell, and Ann Sexton. Music was represented 
by Aaron Copland, Virgil Thomson, Sir Michael Tippett, and Nadia 
Boulanger. Visitors involved in public affairs included Dean Acheson, 
Zbigniew Brzezinski, and John Kenneth Galbraith. Notable among the 
scientists were J. Robert Oppenheimer, Harold Urey, and Carl T. Comp- 
ton. From the world of academia came James Bryant Conant, Jacques 
Barzun, and Irwin Penofsky; theologians included Paul Tillich, Viktor 
Frankil, and Will Herberg. Finally, from other disciplines, three distin- 
guished women should be mentioned: Carson McCullers, Mary Ellen 
Chase, and Margaret Mead — the only person to deliver two Goucher 
commencement addresses. 





■ 




■ 


1 


s 


1 

1^ 


n 


,71 


ipy 




mP 


h^B 


QrfP 




S&^Q 


> 1 


n 




m 


^i^^^l 


m 


^^H 


n 




E| 


rr^^^l 




,^H 


wL^ 




^j 




■ A^'l 


^^ 




■ ^._ 


"J 





Fisher Hall, prom, 1950 



Student Life 



The young people of Goucher recognized President Kraushaar's special Conclusion 
concern for them at the outset of his administration and honored him at 
the end. In Weekly's first issue after Dr. Kraushaar assumed the presi- 
dency, several articles indicated how much the students appreciated the 
considerable time and thought he had spent on student problems during 
his first summer at the College. • ' Nineteen years later, on May i , 1967, 
the students again expressed their appreciation — together with that of 
the faculty and staff — by replacing May Day with K-Day, one of the 
most heartwarming expressions of College spirit in this writer's memo- 
ry. To honor President Kraushaar for the last time during his tenure of 
office the entire College turned out to clean, paint, and generally refur- 
bish the campus he had built and nurtured during his nearly two dec- 
ades at Goucher. He, in turn, followed the perspiring but elated workers 
around the ring road, dispensing coffee, hot chocolate, and doughnuts. 
At the end of the day. President Kraushaar received a photo album 
depicting highlights of his administration from a grateful student body. 
The Executive Committee accepted, on May 16, 1966, President 
Kraushaar's announcement of his retirement, effective June 30, 1967; 
on May zi the Board of Trustees formed a committee to select a new 
president. At a special meeting on January 7, 1967, the Board elected 
Dr. Marvin Banks Perry, Jr., the seventh president of Goucher College. 
On January 2 1 the board named Otto F. Kraushaar President Emeritus. 




Professor Donald Risley addressing art class, i960 




Women for Nixon, i960 







Orchestra and Glee Club performance, early i960 



Part Three 



-^^ -^f^ 



The Perry 

Administration 

( I 9 6 7 - I 9 y ^ ) 



THIRTEEN 



Student Activism 
The Temper 
of the Times 



T 

.A. he '. 



he six-year administration of Introduction 
President Marvin Banks Perry, Jr., though the third shortest in 
Goucher's history,' stands out as one of the most tumultuous and con- 
troversial periods in the annals of the College.- Because of the complex- 
ity of the circumstances surrounding it, the Perry administration poses 
special problems of interpretation. During these half-dozen years the 
College approached financial collapse — not for the first time, but now 
in a context complicated by concurrent events never previously encoun- 
tered in the College's history, including the most widespread and violent 
expression of student activism ever experienced in the United States. The 
worldwide student upheaval of the sixties produced a turbulence from 
which the College could not possibly remain aloof. Partly as a result of 
vigorous student questioning of recently accepted but perhaps already 
outmoded academic traditions, Goucher restructured its governance 
and its curriculum in a flurry of activity reminiscent of similar faculty 
endeavors in 1934. Because of these interrelated events, the Perry ad- 
ministration remains difficult to explain or assess. 

Probably as a consequence of low morale caused by a long series of 
financial reversals, blame for the College's fiscal and other problems 
during this period was cast in many directions: at the president — the 
most conspicuous target; at the financial vice president, who "should 
have blown the whistle"; at the Board of Trustees, which did not "heed 
early warnings"; at the students, who displayed "anti-social and anti- 
intellectual behavior"; at the Faculty, who "caved in to the students"; at 
the national government, whose actions, active and passive, helped 
bring on the student revolt; at the deteriorating economy; in short, at 
everything and everybody "else." To assign blame is not the purpose of 
these pages, which aim to present the facts without judgment — other 
than the obvious one that when, even in times of extreme controversy 

Julia Rogers Library 



The Perry 
Administration 




President Marvin B. Perr\', Jr., 1967-73 



and change, standards are maintained, courage is shown in the face of 
adversity, and civihty is preserved against all provocation, then some 
virtues have prevailed. Moreover, the facts themselves may suggest that 
individual blame is truly unwarranted. 

Part 3 will consider, in successive chapters, the matter of student 
activism and the faculty and administrative responses to student pres- 
sures, the curricular and governance changes generated by President 
Perry's Committee on the Future of the College, the grave financial 
situation that developed in the Perry years, and other noteworthy events 
of this period not specifically related to these dominant themes. 



Prologue: National Because student activism at Goucher during the sixties and seventies 

and International was part of a dramatic change in student attitudes and concerns both in 

Student Unrest the United States and throughout the world, this chapter begins with a 

from i960 to 1970 very abbreviated summary of these trends to provide a background for 

the behavior of the Goucher community. 

Juxtaposed with the apathy and conformity that marked the Silent 
Generation of the fifties, the manifestation of student activism in the 
sixties may seem like a very modern development. We should, however, 
remember the St. Scholastica's Day riot at Oxford in 1 3 54, the revolt at 
Harvard in 1766, and the sacking of Princeton in 18 17.' What makes 
the sixties so striking is not the novelty and rapid escalation of student 
protest, but the contrast to the preceding decade. 

Student activism had taken a new turn in the thirties when, for the 

first time, it became associated with national politics. The depression, 

followed by the deteriorating international situation that led to the 

Second World War, added a dimension of seriousness not previously 

150 characteristic of student disorders, typically regarded in earlier years as 



high-spirited, youthful pranks, however destructive their consequences. 
The return of the veterans after the war introduced the stoic attitude 
which ultimately became the quiet (or apathetic, depending on one's 
point of view) acceptance of the status quo that characterized American 
students of the fifties. 

In the rest of the world, the academic scene was far less serene. 
Students organized to help bring about the downfall of Juan Peron in 
Argentina in 1955 and Perez Jimenez in Venezuela three years later, 
overthrew the Japanese government in i960, contributed largely to the 
fall of Syngman Rhee in Korea and Adnan Menderes in Turkey in the 
early sixties, and participated in unsuccessful uprisings in Hungary, 
Poland, and East Germany. In the United States, however, students 
seemed to lack a sufficiently compelling catalyst to bring them to politi- 
cal life.4 

In 1960 the cause emerged. The first sit-in took place on February i, 
when four black students from North Carolina Agricultural and Techni- 
cal College, who took seats at a segregated lunch counter in Greens- 
boro, were promptly arrested for trespassing. Within a month, more 
than 300 students had been arrested for sit-ins in the South. Soon north- 
ern students — including Goucher undergraduates — were picketing 
public facilities and courting or experiencing arrest. Other issues of 
public policy also sparked protests, but desegregation, later integration, 
continued to act as a catalyst for students.^ 

In February 1962 the march of about 5,000 on the Pentagon, includ- 
ing a number of Goucher students and faculty, established the anti-war 
movement as another major issue of protest, but racial integration con- 
tinued to be the primary basis for American student activism, especially 
in the South. Since many liberals viewed integration and peace as accept- 
able causes, prior to 1964 the press and the colleges and universities 
tended to lend their approval to the awakening of students from their 
torpor of the previous decade. That view began to change, however, 
when student protesters turned their attention to the universities them- 
selves.^ 

The first major American episode in which students took violent 
steps to oppose an institutional policy resulted in 1964 from admin- 
istrative directives at Berkeley forbidding the use of a strip of university 
property for soliciting funds and for planning and recruiting for off- 
campus social and political activities. The student response to this pro- 
hibition was the Free Speech Movement (FSM), which organized class 
boycotts and a sit-in in the university's administration building. The 
protest, during which approximately 800 students were arrested, tied 
up Sproul Hall for some fifteen hours, and the ensuing strike virtually 
paralyzed the university. The students objected to Berkeley's policy that 
school facilities could not be used to support or advocate off-campus 
social or political action, a stance which the activist students interpreted 
as a violation of free speech. The Regents concurred, at least in part, and 
on November zo they agreed that political activity could take place on 
campus, provided that any off-campus activities resulting from on- 
campus planning were legal. The FSM saw this proviso as an attempt to 
prevent the on-campus planning of direct action in the community,^ and 
on December 8 the Berkeley Academic Senate supported the student 
position. The Regents also accepted some of the student demands, and 



The Perry Chancellor Strong was forced to resign. Thus, by the end of 1964, the 

Administration FSM at Berkeley had established the fact that student power was real 

and that direct action could be effective.** 

By the mid-sixties activism had spread, particularly in connection 
with the Vietnam War. Haverford students held a drive in 1964 to 
collect medical supplies for the Vietcong, and in 1965 University of 
Michigan students "sat in" at the Ann Arbor draft board while the 
Michigan faculty conducted the first teach-in. In October 50,000 stu- 
dents marched on Washington to oppose the United States' intervention 
in Vietnam, and 40,000 students marched in December.'^ 

Before long, local grievances related to individual campuses pro- 
duced vigorous student protests: demands for reinstatement of termi- 
nated faculty members, desegregation of fraternities and sororities, an 
end to compulsory membership in student organizations, faculty salary 
increases, and other such concerns sparked picketing, sit-ins, or mass 
demonstrations at a number of institutions. 

Soon, the new theme of student power began to emerge from these 
campus confrontations. The fundamental principle involved, that stu- 
dents should have a recognized right to determine their own affairs,'" 
precipitated their demands for voice and vote in policy-making bodies 
within their own institutions. Many colleges and universities began as 
early as 1964 to include students in policy-making committees, though 
this innovation was not fully implemented at Goucher until 1970. 

Compared with other institutions, Goucher seemed relatively re- 
strained during the explosive sixties." Perhaps because it was a wom- 
en's college, major protests involving draft deferment procedures, mili- 
tary recruitment, and ROTC programs were rare at a time when these 
issues precipitated activism at many institutions with large male popula- 
tions. In 1967—68 widespread physical confrontations directed against 
armed service recruiters, the Dow Chemical Company (manufacturer of 
napalm), and the CIA took place at many institutions. But one strategy, 
the walk-out, introduced in 1966 at such institutions as Berkeley, 
Amherst, NYU, and Howard, manifested itself at Goucher when stu- 
dents boycotted the College's spring convocation in 1969. 



1968 and 1969: The From New York to Tokyo, 1968 and 1969 stood out as international 
Student Shouts Heard years of student protest. In April 1968 a peaceful dissent over Columbia 
Round the World University's right to construct a gymnasium on public park land and the 

school's affiliation with the Institute of Defense Analyses erupted into 
violence. The outburst led to a two-week suspension of classes, more 
than 600 arrests, damage to five buildings occupied by students, and the 
resignation of President Grayson Kirk and his vice president and likely 
successor, David Truman.'- During the same period the University of 
Wisconsin became the scene of a bloody battle between Madison police 
and students occupying the university's placement offices. At San Jose a 
football game was cancelled following a threat to burn down the sta- 
dium. Four and a half months of continuous striking at San Francisco 
State, routine bomb threats at San Francisco and Berkeley, the killing of 
two Black Panthers by political rivals at UCLA, and the death of the 
president of Swarthmore during a student occupation of administration 
I f2 offices all illustrate the unrest so characteristic of the sixties." 




Student Activism 



^ 





Students prepare to leave campus for demonstration in Washington, D.C., 1967 



These confrontations in the United States, juxtaposed with events 
abroad, created a sense of global community among radicals — a devel- 
opment not lost on American students. Disorders in Germany followed 
the near-assassination of a radical student leader; several Italian cam- 
puses were paralyzed by strikes; the Events of May in Paris had wide- 
spread repercussions and nearly toppled the DeGaulle regime; 
casualties resulted during uprisings in Mexico City; and a sit-in involv- 
ing thousands of students shut down the University of Tokyo for much of 
the 1968—69 academic year.'"* 

The beginning of a new decade did not bring an end to student unrest. 
On April 30, 1970, President Nixon ordered American troops into 
Cambodia, and on May 4 the National Guard shot and killed four Kent 
State University students in a confrontation that shook the nation and 



prompted (somewhat anticlimactically) the creation of a Presidential 
Commission on Campus Unrest. These events generated the first nation- 
al student strike in American history: 450 colleges and universities 
closed. 

Kent State was only the beginning. Two black students died at Jack- 
son State in Mississippi, twelve suffered shotgun wounds at SUNY at 
Buffalo, nine were stabbed with bayonets at the University of New 
Mexico, and students burned ROTC buildings at such institutions as 
Colorado College and the Universities of Iowa, Ohio, Nevada, and 
Alabama. 1^ 



The themes that recur relentlessly in the Gaucher Weekly in the first year 
of the Perry administration constitute a litany of the principal student 
concerns of the late sixties, particularly anti-war sentiments and an 
endorsement of black power and student power, meaning more voice in 
decision-making and freedom from parietal rules. 

Faced with such a multiplicity and variety of student concerns, the 
administration succeeded in maintaining a middle course, though its 
efforts were not fully supported by a seriously divided faculty. While a 
substantial number of moderate and liberal faculty members favored a 
balanced response to student demands, a small group of self-proclaimed 
radical members lent their support to and even encouraged the more 
extreme student positions. 

In September 1967 the major Goucher issue was self-scheduled ex- 
aminations."' In January 1968 the debate focused on the abolition of 
comprehensive examinations.'^ A month later President Perry accepted 
the Students' Organization proposal to abolish the regulation prohibit- 
ing students from registering in hotels, motels, and boarding houses in 
the Baltimore area. (President Perry, in keeping with the administra- 
tion's moderate stance, vetoed a concurrent proposal that all dormitory 
residents be given the privilege of having men in their rooms from i :oo 
to 5:30 p.m. on Saturdays; he felt that such a measure would "cause too 
much invasion of the privacy of those girls who did not use the permis- 
sion.")"* 

At the beginning of April 1968, opposition to the draft became the 
principal issue at Goucher, with the focus on the trial of the Rev. Phillip 
Berrigan et al., the Baltimore Four, accused of trying to destroy draft 
board records; but the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King on April 
4 and the ensuing riots in downtown Baltimore that led to the calling out 
of the National Guard immediately dominated the consciousness and 
conscience of the community.''' 

As the spring and fall of 1968 unfolded, campus attention divided 
between national and local issues. At the mock political convention held 
at Goucher in April 1968, Eugene McCarthy won on the fourth ballot 
when the supporters of Robert F. Kennedy switched their support to 
him. (The final count was McCarthy, 130; Rockefeller, 91; Kennedy, 
6.)-" Meanwhile Weekly became increasingly strident in its advocacy of 
Goucher student power, emphasizing the right of students to vote on 
such issues as evaluation of the pass-fail system and the "Report of the 
Committee on the Future of the College."-' The shrillness of student 
demands probably explains the statement in the minutes of the Septem- 



ber 23 meeting of the trustee Executive Committee that "while no stu- 
dent demonstrations are anticipated at Goucher, Dr. Perry reported that 
he has held informal conversations with various groups regarding possi- 
ble College policies, should such situations arise. "-^ 

At the October 21 meeting of the committee, Dr. Perry reported that 
"a few students have displayed interest in the dismissal of some employ- 
ees working in the dormitories. These students are further interested in a 
union for employees, although the College pays an hourly wage well 
above that of the federal minimum wage and is working on an improved 
pension system."-' At the same meeting President Perry noted that a 
student committee and Weekly were planning to sponsor a poetry read- 
ing by anti-war activist Daniel Berrigan, and at the meeting of Novem- 
ber 4, Dr. Perry commented on a request from the SDS, Students for a 
Democratic Society, that the Goucher faculty cancel classes or engage in 
teach-ins as protest on Election Day.--* At the same meeting the trustees 
discussed College policies regarding the endowment, anticipating the 
possibility that students and/or faculty might request the College to 
invest funds in some "community or humanitarian project." 

Anti-establishment political views were, as we have seen, not limited 
to the student body. On January 3 1 , 1 969, Weekly reported that thirteen 
faculty members had formed a chapter of the New University Confer- 
ence, self-described as "a national membership organization of radical 
scholars, students, and intellectuals."-^ 

On February 2 1 , in response to a proposal from the Students' Organ- 
ization, the Faculty considered a motion to invite students to attend the 
next two meetings of the Faculty as non-participating observers. After 
heated discussion the motion passed at the following meeting on March 
8. This was the first step toward what would later become the College 
Assembly, the Faculty's successor as the primary legislative body of the 
College; the Assembly includes student representatives as full voting 
members. 

The political stance Weekly adopted during this period, which hap- 
pened to coincide with a visible change in its journalistic standards, 
finally prompted a number of students to generate a petition that the 
paper be denied funding from the student activities ticket and therefore 
forced to support itself by subscription. At the same time, a group of 
students announced plans to publish an alternative paper. Echo, which, 
they said, would be "an informative, 'community' newspaper that is 
'campus-oriented.'"-* Echo did, in fact, begin publication on May 20, 
and three issues appeared before the end of the academic year.-^ Nev- 
ertheless, citing lack of student support. Echo ceased publication after 
its third issue. A year later, on May 22, 1970, also claiming lack of 
support. Weekly ceased publication for the rest of the spring and the 
following term, leaving the College with no newspaper for the fall of 
1970. To help fill the gap, the College administration published Chan- 
nels, distributed twice a month until Weekly finally resumed publication 
during the second semester of 1970—71. 

One of the most explosive issues on the Goucher campus during these 
years involved the attempt by the class of 1969, one month before its 
scheduled graduation, to avoid taking comprehensive examinations, an 
effort supported by underclassmen who anticipated the same academic 
confrontation later on. The minutes of the Faculty meeting of May 10 



record that history Professor Lee Lowenfish read a petition signed by 
about 520 students which said: "We, the undersigned, feel that senior 
comprehensives should not be a requirement for graduation. We also 
feel that each department, with the approval of its junior and senior 
majors (or representatives), should be left to decide the form of its 
comprehensives and whether its seniors should be required to take 
them." Mr. Lowenfish moved that, pending a summer study of the 
question of comprehensives and a discussion beginning with the first fall 
faculty meeting, the status of comprehensive examinations as a degree 
requirement be suspended for the class of 1969. Supported by an opin- 
ion of the Faculty parliamentarian, the Chair ruled that the motion was 
out of order since the rules of procedure did not allow the suspension of 
legislation. Spanish Professor Alfredo Matilla then moved that senior 
comprehensive examinations be abolished as a requirement for gradua- 
tion. A motion to table Mr. Matilla's motion was adopted. 
On May 16 Weekly summarized the current situation. 

The President's Council has called a faculty meeting today at 1:00 in 
response to a student petition for the abolition of comprehensives as a re- 
quirement for graduation this year. Over 800 students and several faculty 
and administrators attended an open meeting on Tuesday, May 1 3 , to discuss 
the petition after a similar petition signed by approximately 700 students 
was tabled at the faculty meeting last Saturday, May lo.-** The second peti- 
tion, signed by 925 students, states: "We request that an experiment be 
initiated commencing with the class of 1 969 which will free graduation from 
dependence on the results of the senior comprehensive exams. The effect of 
this experiment will be evaluated and reported on at the second fall faculty 
meeting. We request that enough faculty meetings be held between now and 
comps so that this experiment can be put into effect." 

The reason behind the petition was then explained by Barbara Safriet, 
past president of Student Org. She indicated that [the question was] whether 
the comps ought to be required for graduation when there are "inequalities 
between departments in giving comps" and when "everyone must suc- 
cessfully complete comps before graduation." Safriet observed that some 
seniors have prepared comps, some have semi-prepared ones, while other 
seniors have no idea what will be included in theirs. She added that the 
College was placing more value on a six-hour test than on four years of 
learning. Safriet emphasized that the consensus of the curriculum committee 
report last year indicated that comps were "academically unsatisfactory in 
their present form." 

At the Faculty meeting on May 16, a motion to remove Mr. Matilla's 
motion from the table was defeated by a vote of 49 to 25. Dean Rhoda 
Dorsey then moved adoption of a resolution from the Curriculum Com- 
mittee which recognized the deep student concern about comprehensive 
examinations and assured the students that an ad hoc committee would 
be charged with making recommendations with regard to comprehen- 
sive examinations no later than the end of the first term of 1 969-70, and 
further promised the students that the Faculty would take prompt action 
on these recommendations; the resolution made clear, however, that the 
Faculty considered taking any action involving a change in degree re- 
quirements for the class of 1969 inadvisable so late in the year. This 
resolution passed by a vote of 53 to 15 with one abstention. 

Following these actions on the part of the Faculty, a majority of the 



students decided that, under the circumstances, to participate in the 
honors convocation ceremonies that were scheduled for May zo would 
be inappropriate. With the prior knowledge of the administration, the 
presidents of the senior class and of the Students' Organization read 
brief statements from the stage of Kraushaar Auditorium. The first 
statement, by Gail Anderson, follows: 

I stand here today as permanent president of the class of 1969 and repre- 
sentative of those seniors who have chosen not to attend this Honors Con- 
vocation. We do earnestly and with all due respect believe that to hold an 
Honors Convocation in our academic community would be meaningless. We 
hold this belief not only because the petition of 925 people was ignored, but 
also because of the dissension and factionalism which has precluded a clear, 
reasoned statement from the faculty on the issue that concerns all of us. We 
believe that this factionalism has emerged as a result of a loss of trust among 
faculty and students. As seniors who have known and respected our faculty 
for four years, we are now disillusioned and disappointed by those persons 
who have questioned our integrity and intellectual capabilities, and yet 
have themselves abandoned their own personal and professional integrity. 
To receive honors at the hands of our faculty at this time would be inap- 
propriate. 

We members of the class of 1969 will hold our own Convocation in 
Haebler Memorial Chapel after this statement has been read. This convoca- 
tion we feel will be both honorable and meaningful. 

The second statement, by Lucretia Mott Gibbs, president of the Stu- 
dents' Organization, follows: 

We feel that an educational assembly at this time on this campus is invalid. 
The faculty, with some exceptions, has violated its role as a professional 
educator in its failure to respond to a valid quesdon, submitted by 92.5 
students, and in its manipulation of an open question into a temporary dead 
end. As students who have been unjustly accused by the faculty of being 
coerced and using coercive measures to effectively articulate a question, and 
who have subsequently been ignored and insulted, again by a faculty which is 
reponsible to us as an educator, we cannot take part in this educational 
assembly.^'' 

After the reading of these statements, those students who partici- 
pated in the walk-out marched to the Haebler Memorial Chapel where 
they proceeded to hold their own honors convocation. ^0 The faculty 
was hurt by the students' vituperative reaction to what the majority 
considered an appropriate response to a demand for precipitous action, 
one that would have changed the degree requirements of a particular 
class only a few weeks prior to their graduation. Nonetheless, when the 
matter was reconsidered the following year in a less emotionally charged 
atmosphere, the faculty voted to abolish the comprehensive examina- 
tions as a degree requirement beginning with the class of 1970 and to 
replace them with an integrative exercise. 

When a group of students asked President Perry to close the College 
in connection with the proposed October 1 5 [ 1 969] moratorium on the 
Vietnam War, he replied that, while he personally opposed the war, he 
also opposed any attempt to close the College.^' At the October 25 
meeting of the Board of Trustees, Dr. Perry reported with pleasure that 
only a few students and faculty members had asked him to close the 
College, a request he had denied. He emphasized his "tempered opti- 



The Perry mism" that "Goucher's pressing problems can be solved if all the re- 

Administration sources of the College community are employed to achieve change 

which reflects clear thinking, responsible commitment, and the convic- 
tion that the College is not a political vehicle."" 

The administration's position that the College should not, as an 
institution, adopt political positions was severely tested. On April 30, 
1970, the Nixon administration decided to send U.S. troops to Cam- 
bodia; four days later, four students died at Kent State University during 
a student protest. When the Faculty met in special session on May 5, it 
voted against cancelling classes on May 7 in support of the Goucher 
Strike," a proposed demonstration intended to protest the Cambodian 
invasion and the Kent State killings and organized as part of a national 
student strike against the war. In a memorandum to "The Goucher 
Community," President Perry reported that at its May 5 meeting, by a 
vote of 29 to 28 with six abstentions (a vote indicative of how divided 
the body was), the Faculty had expressed "its deep dismay over the 
expansion of the war in South East Asia" and requested the president 
"to declare Thursday, May 7, a College day of mourning for those killed 
this week in the United States and in Asia because of that expansion." 
Dr. Perry's memo continues: 

Accordingly, I urge members of the Goucher Community to follow their 
individual consciences in observing this day in any appropriate manner. As 
the President of the College, I will not cancel Goucher classes and other 
College activities, but those students whose consciences urge them to forego 
their regular academic duties on this day are free, as they have long been at 
Goucher, to follow their consciences in such matters. Similarly, all those who 
wish to express their feelings without interrupting their educational commit- 
ments are free to do so. 

While most of the faculty dutifully appeared for their classes, only a few 
students followed suit. A majority of the absentees demonstrated in 
Washington. 

On May 16 in response to a student referendum in which more than 
half the student body supported the introduction of temporary grading 
options, applicable to the spring term of 1970 and intended to allow 
students who so wished to "work for peace," the Faculty approved the 
following four options: 

1. Complete any or all courses as usual 

2. Take any or all courses pass-fail, with any excess over the normal 
allowance not affecting the allowance for the following year 

3. Take an incomplete in any or all courses with twelve months to 
complete (with permission of the instructor and the dean, as usual) 

4. Withdraw from any or all courses up to the time of the final 
examination without penalty^'* 

It should be noted that in most of these actions Goucher followed the 
lead of other institutions, just as Goucher students imitated the stances 
of students at other colleges and universities. 

On May 1 3 President Perry reported to the Executive Committee on 
1^8 the current state of affairs at the College and announced a plan to 



present, in place of the customary honors convocation, a convocation Student Activism 

concert for peace;-''^ this decision was no doubt taken with a view to 
providing an appropriate occasion for the expression of feeUngs while 
avoiding a possible repetition of the events that had taken place at the 
1969 Honors Convocation. Nonetheless, the concert was briefly inter- 
rupted by representatives of the Black Students' Association, who took 
the opportunity to express some of their frustrations. Subsequently, Dr. 
Perry called a special meeting of the Executive Committee on June 3 to 
give its members an opportunity to hear the concerns and requests of 
members of the association. Acting as secretary pro tempore of the 
meeting. President Perry summarized their deeply felt needs, presented 
to the trustees in the rhetoric of the times as demands, as follows: "The 
need for intensifying the recruiting of black students to increase the 
number enrolled at Goucher; the need for increased financial aid for 
black students, especially the renewal of aid after the freshman year; 
increasing the number of Black Studies courses in the curriculum of the 
College; and intensifying the search for black administrative officials, 
faculty, and guidance personnel."'* 

On June 15 the Executive Committee, clearly fearing a possible stu- 
dent attempt to take over a College building, discussed and supported a 
draft presented by President Perry of a "Code of Conduct for Safeguard- 
ing the Rights of Members of the Goucher College Community." On 
August 29 the full Board commended President Perry for his presenta- 
tion of the code and approved the text, with a few modifications, aimed 
to discourage students and others from seizing College buildings or 
damaging its property. 

The following year student agitation throughout the nation abated, 
and Goucher seemed much quieter. Dr. Perry commented to the Board 
of Trustees (on October 2.3, 1971) on the relative calm that appeared to 
have returned to American college campuses in the preceding year, in his 
opinion, "accompanied by a more healthy, optimistic and rational atti- 
tude." A year later, on September 18, 1972., he pointed out to the 
Executive Committee that the mood of the campus seemed more pleas- 
ant and relaxed than at any time in the previous three years. One symp- 
tom of the change in student attitudes was, as Dr. Perry remarked to the 
Board of Trustees on January 27, 1973, a notable increase in career- 
orientation among the students.'^ 

Nonetheless, the matter of parietal rules still concerned the students. 
On January 10, 1972, Dean Nichols reviewed for the benefit of the 
Executive Committee the report of the joint ad hoc Committee on Parie- 
tal Rules, and after extended discussion in which students participated, 
the Executive Committee voted to approve in principle the proposed 
recommendations: 

Policy with respect to male visitation in dormitory rooms of the College will 
be decided by at least a two-thirds vote of members of each individual house 
or agreed upon subdivision of a house. Procedures and appropriate safe- 
guards will be worked out by the Dean of Students Office in cooperation with 
student leaders and will be subject to approval of the President and Executive 
Committee of the Board of Trustees. Following approval, the policy will be 
implemented at the beginning of the 1972/73 academic year on an experi- 
mental basis, to be reviewed after two years of operation. ^^ ij^ 



The Perry 
Administration 



The student reaction was expressed by the jubilant front page banner 
headhne of Weekly's issue of February i8, 1972: "24 Hour Parietais in 
Effect September 72"! 

While the introduction in 1970 of a new institution, the College 
Assembly, apparently dealt acceptably with the students' concern that 
they have voice and vote in major legislative decisions, they continued to 
request representation on the Board of Trustees. On September zo, 
1 97 1, the Executive Committee discussed the merits of accepting an 
undergraduate or a first-year alumna as a member of the board. On 
January 8, 1973, the Executive Committee recommended to the board 
that it elect, as a matter of policy, beginning with the spring meeting of 
1973, one eligible senior from a list of at least three proposed by the 
Students' Organization, the chosen individual to serve a three-year term 
without eligibility for reelection. The full board accepted the recom- 
mendation on January 27.^' 



The role President Perry played in connection with student activism 
during his administration deserves more than token commendation. 
The responses of presidents on some other campuses and the events that 
ensued during this period suggest that the stance Dr. Perry and his staff 
adopted in the face of highly emotional and sometimes quickly con- 
sidered and hastily expressed student demands was, on balance, the 
wisest and most salutary approach. When necessary. President Perry 
said no; he repeatedly declined to close the College; but regardless of the 
nature of his feelings, he always dealt politely with students and, even in 
difficult circumstances, he never seemed to lose his patience or his sense 
of humor. 

While students directed much of their political energy during these 
troubled years toward national and international causes, their concern 
with improving their own college life expressed itself in a number of 
issues examined in this chapter and the next. When President Perry 
created the Committee on the Future of the College, he did not specifi- 
cally intend to meet student revisionary demands, but the committee 
soon realized that it could not discuss the future of the institution in an 
historical vacuum; it had to take into account the reality of the contem- 
porary scene. Accordingly, some of the College's ways of addressing 
student dissatisfaction were expressed in the historic "Report of the 
Committee on the Future of the College" (September 1969) and in 
ensuing legislation, though not all the recommendations of the commit- 
tee responded to student concerns. The next chapter, which considers 
the report, continues the theme of student discontent, but it also reflects 
the institution's thinking on many matters (such as coeducation) which 
did not occupy a prominent place in the catalogue of student grievances 
in the early sixties. 



FOURTEEN 



The Committee 

on the Future 

of the College 



A 



, ccording to the preface to the 
"Report of the Committee on the Future of the College,"' "At a meeting 
of the Goucher College Faculty on April 13, 1968, President Perry an- 
nounced that he was establishing a committee to plan and conduct a 
comprehensive study of the College and to make recommendations for 
the years ahead. The committee was to be known as the Committee on 
the Future of the College, and it was to involve all elements of the college 
community — the governing boards, the faculty, the administration, the 
students, and the alumnae." 

Over the next several months, the committee was formed,^ and when 
the roster was complete, it asked President Perry to serve as chairman. 
Dr. Perry accepted and appointed the director of development, Frederick 
Wehr, as executive secretary. 

So began what would become one of the most influential committees 
in the history of Goucher College. Work began in earnest in September 
1968 when the committee divided itself into three subcommittees to 
study, respectively, the academic program, the College's finances, and 
the College as a community. After four months' work, the three subcom- 
mittees presented a summary of their evaluations to the trustees, the 
faculty, the students, and the administrative staff.^ 

The next stage involved the preparation of recommendations for the 
future. With this task completed, the CFC'* presented its final report to 
the Faculty at two all-day retreats at Evergreen House on September 20 
and 27, 1969.5 

The introduction to the CFC report sets forth certain general sugges- 
tions for change that largely govern the specific recommendations incor- 
porated in the body of the text: 

The Committee suggests that the College's academic program should be 
more "student focused" and less "discipline focused." This reorientation 



recognizes the inherent capacities and interests of students and will be re- 
flected in such areas as the curriculum, the study plans of individual students, 
and general academic policy. 

We recommend that the College's programs give more recognition to the 
fact that, currently, only about a third of our students follow their Goucher 
experience with professional training at the graduate level. Thus, a liberal 
arts education at Goucher should be viewed more as a terminal experience 
insofar as formal education is concerned, and faculty and administrators 
involved in it should, accordingly, sharpen their concern for the achievement 
of the goals of this kind of education. 

We recommend that the Goucher educational program give more empha- 
sis to "opening up" the community in order that the student's experience 
may include more contact with aspects of the world outside. We particularly 
want to emphasize the desirability of involving this wider community as part 
of the student's intellectual experience. We also believe that Goucher should 
continue its efforts to increase the variety of backgrounds of its students in 
terms of their cultural, geographical, racial, and economic origins. In seeking 
further variety in the backgrounds and outlooks of its students, we believe 
that Goucher should encourage and welcome men students to enroll in 
courses at the College and to encourage our own women students to seek 
course work in exchange programs elsewhere. 

The Committee views these proposed shifts of emphasis as changes in 
degree rather than in kind, and it reaffirms Goucher's traditional commit- 
ment to an undergraduate academic experience which combines high quality 
with flexibility and experimentation which encourages individual growth 
and self-discovery. Clearly, the College's programs must continue to be "dis- 
cipline focused" to a certain degree, and opportunities for preparation for 
graduate study and professional training must continue to be offered. Thus, 
while much of the College's program will properly maintain its present focus, 
there is room without blurring that focus for experimentation and change in 
a number of areas. '' 

The faculty was not of one mind with regard to some of these pro- 
posals. The notion that the academic program should be more student- 
focused and less discipline-focused was at odds with the graduate train- 
ing and the professional orientation of many faculty members. Graduate 
schools, except for providing an opportunity for their students to con- 
duct a few undergraduate courses, characteristically devote little if any 
time to teaching their students how to teach. The primary concern of 
graduate schools is to produce scholars, researchers, future authors of 
learned articles and books, and scientists devoted to laboratory research 
and discovery. As a consequence of their training, Goucher's junior 
faculty with recent Ph.D.'s often tended to replicate themselves, training 
students to be future scholars in their own particular disciplines. While 
some more experienced faculty, who had devoted much of their careers 
to undergraduate teaching, were willing to consider the idea of a 
student-focused curriculum, faculty in certain areas, notably the sci- 
ences, had to cope with professional school requirements that left little 
room for compromise. Moreover, after years of preparing departmental 
majors for continued study at the graduate and professional school 
level, many senior faculty members had great difficulty in accepting the 
concept of the Goucher degree as a terminal point in formal education, 
with a concomitant need to change their teaching strategies. The last 
paragraph of the introduction was clearly intended to recognize, if not 
entirely to accommodate, these faculty concerns. 



Future of the College 



The extensive recommendations of the CFC involving changes in The Rationale 

the academic program of the College encompassed such varied areas for Changing the 

as the calendar, general requirements for the degree, the freshman year, Academic Program 

the major, independent work, the honors program, and study abroad. 

The Faculty did not implement all the recommendations — at least not 

in the exact form presented — but it considered them all in great detail; 

witness the record-breaking number of faculty meetings held during the 

academic year 1969—70: twenty-three, several of them all-day Saturday 

sessions. 

While the Faculty could consider some of the CFC's recommenda- 
tions on their individual merits and accept or reject them without affect- 
ing the rest of the package, a basic rationale underlay the collection as a 
whole. One of the key objections to the existing curriculum was a very 
old one: rigidity or inflexibility. "These terms . . . covered many aspects 
of the program. Inflexibility was seen again and again in the various 
requirements, especially the distribution requirements; it was seen in 
certain kinds of uniformity characteristic of the Goucher program — 
all courses carrying the same weight, all students carrying the same 
course load, most getting through college at the same time."^ The CFC 
saw the entire academic process as course-bound, and courses as largely 
department-bound; furthermore, "no matter what the merits of the 
program, there was a feeling that students were not able to benefit fully 
from it or even understand it because of a poor advising structure that 
tended, by its operation, to make everything seem more rigid than it in 
fact was."^ 

A second CFC objection pointed to the existing curriculum's tenden- 
cy to overemphasize the intellect: "The student is a person whose capac- 
ity for feeling and for socializing has also to be developed. ... If the 
College does not actively support the student's search for identity, it is 
shirking its responsibility."^ 

While a few faculty members felt somewhat ambivalent about the 
question of inflexibility, seeing that characteristic as a necessary con- 
comitant of intellectual rigor and professional discipline, a larger num- 
ber found it difficult to imagine how an institution of higher education 
could possibly "overemphasize the intellect." For some in this group, 
supporting the students' " search for identity" was something that should 
have occurred at an earlier stage; it was not the proper role for scholars 
highly trained in academic disciplines. To those of this persuasion, the 
students' search might better be considered a prerequisite to a true 
apprenticeship in a serious intellectual endeavor. 

A third CFC argument stressed the need for experimentation. By 
relaxing uniform requirements, increasing flexibility about what to 
teach and how to teach, and being open to new possibilities in inter- 
disciplinary cooperation and off-campus work-study for credit, the Col- 
lege could help "the student who does not work comfortably in estab- 
lished routines to liberate herself intellectually by working out for 
herself in her own way the connections between the world she knows 
empirically and the world as organized and conceptualized by the aca- 
demic mind, seeing finally the relevance of the one to the other." 'O 163 



Another key idea in the committee's thinking had to do with the 
students' perception of the relevance of their studies. 

It does not follow, we hope it is needless to say, that existing courses and 
departments must all be scrapped. Obviously, the ways in which organized 
knowledge is now presented in college do seem relevant to many students. 
But we believe the college might often make more of an effort to make the 
relevance clearer to students and that students for whom it is important to 
acquire intellectual discipline more independently . . . ought to be guaran- 
teed the right to do so." 

To bring about the needed changes, the CFC proposed as a first step 
the introduction of a new academic calendar. 



When the College opened its doors in 1 888, it operated on what is now 
called a 5-5 calendar, that is, one which divides the academic year into 
two semesters of approximately fourteen or fifteen weeks each, with 
students ordinarily taking five courses in each semester. In 1934, as we 
have seen, Goucher introduced a pioneering 3-3-3 calendar, which di- 
vided the year into three terms of ten weeks each, with students carrying 
three courses in each of the three terms. In 1 969 the CFC proposed yet a 
third variation: 34-1-4 calendar: 

The . . .4-1-4 system has generally been established in schools operating 
under a traditional calendar of two 15 -week semesters with students carry- 
ing 5 courses per semester. These schools have seen the difficulties in the 5-5 
system that Goucher saw in 1934 and, to meet some of these difficulties, 
devised the 4-1-4 system. The new calendar allowed for the completion of an 
entire semester of from 13-15 weeks by Christmas and a second semester, 
usually of the same length, beginning in February. Between the two semesters 
came a short January term of about 4 weeks. During each of the two semes- 
ters, students carried 4 courses each; during the January term they carried 1 : 
hence the "4-1-4" designation. '- 

The relationship between the proposal that the College adopt 34-1-4 
calendar and the CFC's concern for overcoming rigidity is cle3r: 

We recommend adoption of the . . . 4-1-4 calendar not primarily because 
it will enhance cooperation with Johns Hopkins and other colleges in the 
vicinity, but because the pressure of our present three-term calendar pro- 
duces excessive standardization and, most importantly, because the one- 
course (and "course" may be too restrictive a term here) winter term in the 
4-1-4 offers opportunities for much of the innovation and experimentation 
which we favor. If accepted, 4-1-4 would be a major change at Goucher, 
necessitating a restructuring of curricular offerings which would, in itself, 
probably stimulate some new approaches to academic endeavor." 

The three-term calendsr, which the CFC hoped to supphnt with the 
new system, had a disadvantage which became more and more notice- 
able with the passage of time: the feeling on the part of both students 
and faculty of having to work under heavy pressure. The compression of 
a course that might otherwise have spread over a standard semester into 
the space of ten weeks tended not to allow students enough time for 
digestion or steeping. Moreover, 3nother re3son impelled the CFC to 
recommend 3 move 3way from the 3-3-3 calendsr: 



The high degree of uniformity in the system — all students taking the same Future of the College 

, number of courses per term each term, each carrying the same credit and 
meeting always on Monday and Tuesday, Thursday and Friday — coupled 
with certain inflexibilities in curricular requirements and the absence of 
substantial variation in dormitory accommodations helps produce an im- 
pression of an overly standardized educational experience at Goucher.''' 

While this objection might in itself have justified the proposed 
change, the CFC suggested two other reasons. First, since every other 
institution in Baltimore operated on a semester system, unless Goucher 
followed suit there would be almost no possibility for Goucher students 
to profit from the interinstitutional program that allowed them to take 
courses on other campuses — nor, of course, could students from other 
colleges fit Goucher courses into their schedules. Second, and more 
important in the CFC's view, the January term provided flexibility and 
time for experimentation in the curriculum. The committee proposed 
that the January-term offerings, since they would not be traditional 
courses, should carry no credit but should appear on the student's 
record and be taken on a pass-fail basis. Every student would be re- 
quired to complete successfully three January-term offerings, one of 
them in the freshman year. 

The proposed calendar evoked intense soul-searching and debate 
when the Faculty began to discuss it on October ii, 1963. There was 
little disagreement about the advantage of ending the first semester 
before Christmas, thereby avoiding the traditional lame-duck period of 
two weeks or so that, in the traditional two-semester calendar, fell after 
the holidays and led directly into final examinations. Moreover, the 
advantage of a calendar that was in general conformity with that of 
other neighboring institutions could scarcely be denied. All the same, 
the 3-3-3 calendar still had strong adherents, including those who en- 
joyed what was widely perceived as a lighter teaching load, although the 
actual number of teaching hours per year was only slightly greater under 
the 4-1-4 proposal. 

While the 3-3-3 calendar allowed a much later fall opening of the 
College, the 4-1-4 proposal produced an earlier end to the year, which 
benefited students seeking summer employment. All the same, a telling 
argument in favor of the 3-3-3 arrangement was made by small depart- 
ments, who noted that they could offer a far richer curriculum under 
that system than the proposed one since a given faculty member could 
offer more courses in three terms than in two semesters. 

While this argument was somewhat countered by the January-term 
proposal, that idea provoked particularly heated debate. Many faculty 
members found it difficult to imagine how they could conjure up, Janu- 
ary after January, an interesting and worthwhile project that would meet 
the spirit of the CFC report without becoming a Mickey Mouse course 
of no real academic value. Basket weaving was frequently cited by oppo- 
nents of the idea as a typical example of a January-term course, and there 
was much talk about lowering Goucher's standards and baby-sitting the 
students. Proponents of the January term insisted that with the exercise 
of sufficient imagination a satisfactory and even exciting array of courses 
could be offered, and that the January term would make possible a total 
concentration on one problem or topic that could not be accorded such 
treatment in a standard semester or trimester course. i6s 



When the debate finally concluded on November i, 1969, the advo- 
cates of change had won the day, and the Faculty approved the third 
major calendar arrangement in Goucher history, withholding endorse- 
ment only of a few details concerning the January term, which were 
postponed for later consideration. As expected, the new calendar led to 
an upsurge of course elections by Goucher students at the Johns 
Hopkins University and an increase in exchange programs with other 
local institutions. Moreover, in January 1 97 1 groups studied in London, 
Paris, Florence, Bermuda, and Mexico, while 750 students took courses 
on the Goucher campus. '^ 



As the CFC's report surmised, the acceptance of the new calendar neces- 
sitated innovations in the curriculum beyond the specific recommenda- 
tions of the committee. By October 1969 the faculty had introduced 
many curricular changes, including some forty new courses, even before 
it had seen the CFG report.'* 

The report included a number of recommendations concerning de- 
gree requirements, which the Faculty discussed and voted on in a series 
of meetings beginning on January 19, 1970. The first dealt with the 
distribution of courses within a student's program. At the time, all 
students were required to take four courses in Faculty III (the Natural 
Sciences and Mathematics) and two courses each in Faculties I (Lan- 
guages, Literature, Philosophy, and the Arts) and II (History and the 
Social Sciences). While the CFG would, in the best of all possible worlds, 
have preferred a completely free elective system, it recognized the dan- 
gers involved: "Our belief in the value of freedom of choice is to a degree 
tempered by our realization that, when guidance is not perfect and 
students are not motivated or stimulated to look carefully at their first 
interest, bias and hasty judgment may lead to distorted choices and 
imbalances that are hard to justify. Therefore, we recommend a minimal 
set of requirements to guarantee a measure of breadth in student pro- 
grams." '^ Specifically, the committee recommended eliminating the dis- 
tribution requirements in Faculties I and II and reducing the require- 
ment in Faculty III to two courses. The rationale for retaining the Faculty 
III requirement was "the strong reluctance of many female students to 
take work in mathematics and the natural sciences."'^ 

The Faculty, however, proved less sanguine than the GFC about stu- 
dents' willingness to take courses in all three faculties, nor did the 
Faculty fully accept the theory of women's strong reluctance to enroll in 
Faculty III courses; so, on January 27 it voted that all students be re- 
quired to take a minimum of two courses in each of the three faculties. 

The GFG favored reducing the foreign language requirement by elim- 
inating the stipulation that all students (except those beginning a new 
language at Goucher) be required to take one course on Level 2 (that is, 
a literature course), but the Faculty found an eloquent speech by Pro- 
fessor Wolfgang E. Thormann, chairman of the Modern Languages 
Department, so persuasive that it voted not to change the require- 
ment.''* Later, certain faculty members, claiming that they had been 
hypnotized by Professor Thormann's powerful rhetoric, attempted to 
reverse this decision, but they were out-voted. 

Goncerning the English composition requirement, on the other hand. 



the Faculty accepted the CFC's recommendation in the following terms: Future of the College 

"Proficiency in English is expected of all students. Students who have 
had serious difficulty or limited experience in English composition in 
secondary school shall be strongly urged by the dean in consultation 
with the English Department to take an expository writing course as 
soon as they enter College. Students who are reported by faculty mem- 
bers to the dean for weaknesses in composition shall be required, on 
recommendation of the English Department, to take a course in exposi- 
tory writing."'" 

The requirement of a course in the Sacred Scriptures presented a 
special situation since it was incorporated in the College by-laws. The 
CFC recommended that: 

the Board of Trustees amend the By-Laws of the College so as to eliminate the 
requirement of a course in the Sacred Scriptures which today seems anach- 
ronistic. We appreciate the moral and spiritual concern expressed in the 
College's original commitment to Christian education and would keep faith 
with that concern by having the College maintain strong departments in 
religion and philosophy and by encouraging students and faculty to under- 
take the study of questions about ultimate values and realities whenever they 
want to do so. The Department of Religion, we are sure, makes every effort to 
present the courses in the Sacred Scriptures not as religious indoctrination 
but as sound scholarship. Nevertheless, the requirement has something of an 
appearance of a religious test and stands out oddly at a time when the College 
has tried hard to shed every other vestige of the appearance of denomination- 
alism or sectarianism. The requirement is not appropriate to the academic 
program, especially in light of our view that uniform requirements need to be 
reduced and students given more freedom of choice.-^' 

The Faculty endorsed this recommendation on January 31, and on 
May 23 the Board of Trustees approved the Faculty's request to remove 
from the by-laws the requirement that "study of the Sacred Scriptures 
shall be part of the curriculum of every student who is graduated from 
said College." 

The CFC had proposed requiring all students to take a total of three 
January-term offerings without credit, and it further recommended, 
even though the normal load of four courses per semester for eight 
semesters implied a requirement of thirty-two semester courses for 
the degree, that the requirement be reduced to twenty-nine semester 
courses. This reduction would include a normal load of three courses for 
the first semester of the freshman year with the rest of the reduction 
intended to allow students some free time to devote to extracurricular 
activities in semesters when such non-academic commitments promised 
to be heavy. 

The Faculty decided, however, that the January-term offerings 
should, in fact, be treated as courses to minimize the risk of game 
playing and watered-down exercises unworthy of college credit. The 
Faculty therefore voted that only two January-term offerings should be 
required, with no more than three counting towards the degree. On that 
basis, it stipulated a minimum of thirty-two courses for the degree in- 
cluding the January-term offerings. 2- 

When the Faculty voted on February 7 that "seminars shall be avail- 
able to all freshmen," it supported the CFC recommendation to con- 
tinue the program of freshman seminars instituted by Dean Geen as one 167 



means of fulfilling entering students' expectations that college would be 
not merely a continuation of high school but, in the words of the CFC 
report, "a truly different realm." 

We saw in the preceding chapter what a burning issue the com- 
prehensive examinations became in 1969. On January 31, 1970, in 
agreement with the general suggestions contained in the CFC report, 
the Faculty voted to eliminate comprehensive examinations as a degree 
requirement and substitute an integrative exercise: "Every candidate for 
the degree shall successfully complete in her senior year an exercise 
which demonstrates her ability to integrate the material of her major 
subject. Departments shall be responsible for providing within their 
curricula integrative exercises suitable to the nature of the major they 
offer. "^^ A number of faculty members opposed this change, feeling that 
the comprehensive examination was the logical and even essential 
capstone to the major. Eliminating it would weaken the quality of the 
degree and cave in to student demands at the expense of sacrificing 
principles. A majority, however, felt that the integrative exercise was an 
adequate safeguard. 

Finally, following the CFC's suggestion, the Faculty voted on Febru- 
ary 7 that "students shall be allowed to undertake independent work at 
any time beginning with second semester of their freshman year." 

As the foregoing account suggests, the Faculty was not prepared to 
accept in toto the CFC's recommendations concerning the curriculum. 
Still, while its stance was somewhat more conservative than the commit- 
tee's, the Faculty introduced enough changes into the existing curricu- 
lum to meet at least some of the its strongest objectives. The shift in the 
academic calendar — though less unique to Goucher than the 1934 
move to the 3-3-3 system — was nonetheless relatively drastic. If the 
Faculty declined to free the academic program as completely from re- 
quired courses as the CFC had hoped, it did reduce the distribution 
requirement, eliminate certain specific course requirements as well as 
the controversial comprehensive examinations, and broaden the oppor- 
tunities for students to do independent work. In short, although the new 
program was not as revolutionary as it might have been, it did help 
liberate the curriculum from excessive standardization and rigidity. 



College Government In March 1969 President Perry directed the Subcomittee on the College 
as a Community to "seek ways whereby Goucher College may develop 
an equitable and effective structure of community government which 
will provide for appropriate involvement of the entire College commu- 
nity at the various levels of policy-making and implementation." The 
basic assumption of the subcommittee,-"' to which the CFC as a whole 
subscribed, was that students should play a role in areas that concerned 
them directly, and to this end the CFC proposed certain changes in the 
College's committee structure. First, it suggested that the Committees 
on Faculty Affairs (Dismissals, Faculty Salaries, Nominations, Commit- 
tee Loads, Publications and Research, and Reappointment, Promotion, 
and Tenure) remain as faculty committees and continue to report to the 
Faculty. Concerning the second existing category of standing commit- 
tees of the faculty, called Committees on Academic Affairs (Religious 

168 Activities, Public Lectures, Library, Admissions, Financial Aid, Rec- 



ords, Independent Work and Honors, Curriculum, and the Discipline Future of the College 

Appeals Board), the CFC proposed substantial changes in the direction 
of increased student participation with full voting power. 

It remained to reconstitute the bodies to which these committees 
would report. The CFC suggested that the Faculty continue in its current 
form and that it concern itself with the affairs dealt with by the first 
category of committees mentioned above. Similarly, the President's 
Council would continue to play its existing role. The CFC then pro- 
posed creating two new bodies parallel to the Faculty and the President's 
Council respectively and named them the College Assembly and the 
Assembly Council. The College Assembly would consist of the "faculty 
of rank" plus approximately ten administrators and a number of under- 
graduates equal to one-third the number of combined faculty and ad- 
ministrative members, plus one graduate student. The Assembly Coun- 
cil, composed of the members of the President's Council plus seven 
members of the Executive Committee of the Students' Organization, 
would set the agenda for each Assembly meeting, as the President's 
Council did for each Faculty meeting. 

This decision was not reached without very strenuous debate, first 
within the Subcommittee on the College as a Community and later in 
the Faculty. The student members of the subcommittee, reflecting the 
viewpoint of a substantial portion of the student body, adopted the 
position that had been advocated on many campuses in the sixties under 
the banner of student power. Students on the subcommittee initially 
insisted that the College Assembly should include all the students as 
members. They also supported student membership on all committees 
of the College, including the Faculty Salaries Committee and the Reap- 
pointment, Promotion, and Tenure Committee. This position was based 
on the proposition that faculty members are responsible for providing 
their students with an education and that students, in their role of 
consumers, should by right have some control over their suppliers. 

Within the faculty the more conservative members held that students 
were lacking in sufficient maturity and experience to judge the profes- 
sional qualifications of their teachers, and that students, as apprentices, 
were not in a position to know what, specifically, was necessary for their 
education; nor were students capable of evaluating their own perfor- 
mance, which could only be measured by experienced professionals. If 
students were to be given such powers, some faculty members argued, 
they would in effect be granting their own degrees. Moreover, to give 
students a majority vote in the Assembly would be to grant primary 
academic power to a group which could, without commensurate re- 
sponsibilities or accountability, legislate long-term policies whose out- 
come, given the students' brief sojourn within the institution, they might 
never experience in person. 

Despite these objections, a majority of faculty members were willing 
to grant the students a stronger voice and a minority vote on matters 
involving the academic program, though not in those of direct concern 
only to the faculty, such as reappointment, promotion, tenure, dismiss- 
als, salaries, publication, and research. After prolonged and sometimes 
heated discussion, the compromise position proposed by the CFC pre- 
vailed, and on November 8, 1969, the Faculty approved a resolution 
defining the College Assembly and the composition of committees un- 169 




Class in College Center courtyard, 1960s 



der the new organization of the College community and formally re- 
quested the Board of Trustees to create the assembly and implement the 
other necessary changes to bring the whole system into being. On May 
23,1 970, the Board of Trustees approved in principle the creation of the 
College Assembly, empowering the president to draft procedures and 
regulations and to implement the new form of governance when the new 
procedures, regulations, and the necessary by-laws had been approved 
and adopted by the Board. The first meeting of the Assembly convened 
on October 14. 



Coeducation The fact that the CFC even raised the question of Goucher's becoming a 

coeducational institution was a consequence of the circumstances in 
which the College found itself in 1 969. The effects of falling enrollments 
combined with soaring inflation, which brought the College to the edge 
of financial disaster during the years of the Perry administration, is the 
subject of chapter 15. Suffice it to say here that the Consumer Price 
Index rose from less than i percent in 1961 to 6 percent in 1969, and 
this increase, combined with a drop in the College's enrollment, pro- 
duced a $77,000 deficit for 1 968-69. While no one could yet anticipate 
that this was the first of a series of five successive deficits totaling 
$1,258,000 by the end of 1972-73, it was not too early for a sense of 
real insecurity to be felt about the future of the institution, especially if 
enrollments continued to drop. Coeducation was viewed as one possible 
approach to increasing enrollment; increased cooperation — or even 
merger — with the Johns Hopkins University was another. 

In discussing coeducation, the CFC report observed that of all the 
questions it had considered, none was more highly charged nor less 

1 70 susceptible to measured analysis of outcomes than this. After a detailed 



consideration of both sides of the issue, the CFC suggested putting Future of the College 

further effort into improving the cooperative arrangements with the 
Johns Hopkins University and recommended that: 

the College consider the possibility of setting up consortium arrangements 
with other men's, women's, and coeducational colleges. . . . 

Given the uncertainties of our day, we suggest that, in a reasonable period 
of time — certainly, within five years — a formal assessment again be made of 
the development of our relations with other institutions, of our admissions 
situation, and of the educational needs of the College. If such an assessment 
indicates the need for new policies and actions, the question of coeducation 
should again be considered.^' 

By the fall of 1971, the accumulated deficit had reached $659,000, 
with a $364,000 deficit in 1970-71 largely caused by an unusually 
large number of students who had withdrawn over the summer. While 
many faculty members and students were opposed in principle to 
Goucher's relinquishing its historic role as a college for women, the 
bleakness of the financial outlook brought about a major change in the 
attitude of at least some faculty members who began to fear that unless 
Goucher broadened its potential pool of applicants by becoming 
coeducational, the College might have no future at all. Accordingly, the 
College Assembly, at its meeting on November 17, voted 56 to 33 to 
request the president to ask the Board of Trustees to begin the study of 
factors bearing on coeducation, as recommended in the CFC's report, at 
the earliest feasible time, anticipating by three years the CFC's suggested 
outer limit of five years for such reconsideration. 

On January 27, 1973, President Perry discussed with the board in 
considerable detail the question of coeducation. All constituent bodies 
of the College, as well as outside institutions with experience in this 
matter, received questionnaires to complete and return. Dr. Perry con- 
cluded that "we have little clear-cut evidence, either educational or 
financial, on which to base an easy decision. "^^ 

A complicating element was added when on April 2, 1973, the trust- 
ee Executive Committee accepted with deep regret Dr. Perry's resigna- 
tion (effective June 30, 1973) in order to accept the presidency of Agnes 
Scott College in Atlanta, Georgia. The impending vacancy inevitably 
affected the process of reaching decisions on such matters as coeduca- 
tion and the College's relationship with the Johns Hopkins University. 

A further complication developed when it became clear that the 
Board of Trustees had in mind a solution to the College's financial 
dilemma different from that of the Faculty. While the Faculty Committee 
on Coeducation had recommended unanimously on March 27 that 
Goucher become coeducational, the trustee Planning and Priorities 
Committee voted to recommend to the Executive Committee that the 
board conduct as soon as possible a study of future relations between 
Goucher College and the Johns Hopkins University, and that until com- 
pletion of that study, no recommendation be made on the matter of 
coeducation. 

Nonetheless, after prolonged discussion (reflecting the fact that fac- 
ulty members were deeply divided on this issue), the Faculty voted 37 to 
20 on April 25 to accept the report of its Committee on Coeducation 
and to submit it to the Executive Committee, along with a recommenda- 171 



tion that a decision in favor of coeducation be made by the beginning of 
the next academic year. The Faculty's feehng of urgency arose from 
concern about the effect further delay could have on the admissions 
office's efforts to retool, if necessary, for coeducation, as well as the 
problems posed by the search for a new president. 

Despite the Faculty's sense of the need for haste, the board held to 
its position that explorations concerning closer cooperation with the 
Johns Hopkins University should take priority over the question of 
coeducation. 

Continuing negotiations with Johns Hopkins made it clear that mer- 
ger with the university was not the best solution to Goucher's problems. 
From the university's point of view, Goucher had a very valuable asset in 
the form of its campus. Caught in the center of the city, Johns Hopkins 
was very short of land on which to undertake new construction, and the 
Goucher campus represented a tempting tract of real estate. On the 
other hand, Goucher came complete, not only with acreage, but with a 
faculty. Given the university's status as a research institution, the idea of 
the Goucher faculty's taking over responsibility for teaching under- 
graduates, while freeing the university faculty to devote itself fully to 
research and the training of graduate students, no doubt seemed worthy 
of initial consideration, but problems emerged when that arrangement 
was examined more closely. First, the university faculty did not embrace 
the notion of Goucher faculty teaching upper-division undergraduate 
courses which often doubled as graduate courses; second, if Goucher 
faculty taught all the undergraduates, there would be no way to employ 
the graduate students as teaching assistants, an occupation considered 
necessary both to the graduate students' training and to financing their 
education. Other matters such as tenure and the size of the Goucher 
faculty made merger, even taking into account the real estate involved, a 
less attractive step than was first apparent. Accordingly, the focus of 
discussion shifted to greater cooperation between the two institutions, 
which would not in itself solve the problems of increasing costs and 
reduced tuition revenue that were depleting Goucher's expendable en- 
dowment. For these reasons, the Executive Committee voted unan- 
imously on September 17, 1973: 

I . To favor increased cooperation with the Johns Hopkins University, 
rather than merger 

z. To move ahead, discuss, and decide the matter of coeducation at 
Goucher 

3. To proceed with the search for a president of Goucher College 

4. To implement a program for a five-year plan to reduce the budget 
in order to avoid running out of expendable endowment funds 

5. To form a committee responsible for the full-scale utilization of 
Goucher College's facilties'" 

The College implemented these resolutions, some during the acting 
presidency of Dr. Rhoda Dorsey, others after her election as eighth 
president. 

On September 20 the College Assembly, after considerable discus- 
sion, went on record (by a vote of 5 9 to 7, with 2 abstentions) in favor of 
further discussion of cooperation with the Johns Hopkins University. 



The faculty, the administrative staff, and the students also favored coop- Future of the College 

eration rather than merger. On October 8 the Assembly, with strong 

student support and a shift in some faculty votes, defeated a motion in 

favor of coeducation by a vote of 6i to 36, with 4 abstentions; on the 

same day, the trustee Priorities and Planning Committee voted 1 1 to i to 

recommend that Goucher maintain its status as a liberal arts college for 

women and approved unanimously a recommendation that the College 

develop a means of achieving an educationally distinctive program. On 

October 13 the Board of Trustees voted (with three nays) to accept the 

recommendations of the Priorities and Planning Committee. Thus, the 

question of Goucher's becoming coeducational was put temporarily to 

rest. 



FIFTEEN 



Major Financial 

Problems: Reality 

versus Mirage 



M oun 



o understand and interpret the fi- 
nancial problems that arose during the Perry administration and the 
years immediately following, it may be helpful to recall the general 
economic circumstances that prevailed nationally at that time, particu- 
larly as these conditions affected higher education in the United States. 



The Financial State A major study of the state of higher education during the late sixties and 

of Higher Education early seventies. Priorities for Action: Final Report of the Carnegie Com- 

in America mission on Higher Education, contains a revealing subsection, "The 

ii96j-i9-/i) Financial Depression," that makes the following observation: 

Institutions of higher education escaped their genteel poverty after World 
War II; they even became newly prosperous. But a "new depression" has 
quickly followed the new-found prosperity, and it is likely to be more 
enduring — higher education has moved from genteel poverty to genteel pov- 
erty in one generation. It is undoubtedly better to have prospered and lost 
than never to have prospered at all, but the adjustment to the new depression 
is more difficult than was the adjustment to the new prosperity.' 

Two years earlier the Carnegie Commission had published another 
volume, this one by Earl F. Cheit, with the title indirecdy quoted above: 
The New Depression in Higher F.ducation. In his foreword the then 
chairman of the Carnegie Commission on Higher Education, Clark 
Kerr, first called attention to the post-Sputnik era and the enormous 
increase in federal and state aid to higher education which enabled 
colleges and universities to absorb the postwar baby-boom. Dr. Kerr 
then turned to the abrupt reversal, ca. 1967, when institutional income 
began to lag behind expenditures. The body of the book studies this 
t74 financial reversal in terms of conditions then existing at forty-one col- 



leges and universities. After analyzing these data, Professor Cheit con- 
cluded that twenty-nine (or 7 1 percent) of the institutions studied "were 
either headed for financial trouble or were already in financial difficul- 
ty" (p. viii). Dr. Cheit interpreted these figures to mean that the colleges 
and universities "headed for financial trouble represented, on a weight- 
ed basis, 42 percent of the institutions and 54 percent of the students in 
the nation, . . . excluding the specialized institutions. This suggests that 
just about 1,000 institutions, enrolling nearly four million students, 
were headed for financial trouble."' 

According to Dr. Kerr, private institutions were considerably more 
likely than public ones to face financial difficulty in the spring of 1970; 
within the private sector the liberal arts colleges were, after the univer- 
sities, most prone to financial woes. Coupled with an acceleration of the 
decline in enrollment over several years, this implied that "the survival 
of many of our private institutions of higher education [is] in jeopardy. "^ 
Professor Cheit noted that this situation had not escaped the attention of 
the national press: "nearly every popular journal has by now [1971] 
recognized that higher education is in a financial depression and has 
published its 'financial-crisis-on-the-campus' article. "•» 

What caused this fiscal plight? Though the steady rise in costs since 
World War II had long been felt, a new financial development, a relative 
or even absolute decline in income, emerged in the late sixties. Such a 
rise in costs accompanied by a decline in income had not occurred since 
the Great Depression.'' Professor Cheit notes that, after ten years of 
building and expanding, the trend on campuses in 1971 had reversed 
direction. "The talk, the planning, and the decisions then centered on 
reallocating, on adding only by substitution, on cutting, trimming, even 
struggling to hang on."*" 

The peculiar nature of the income squeeze differentiated the new 
depression from that of the thirties. Although all prices (except stock 
market share prices, whose increase might have helped the endowment) 
were rising at an unforeseeable rate, income continued dropping. Some 
Goucher faculty salaries actually increased in value during the Great 
Depression because the drop in prices outweighed the faculty's four- 
year, ID percent salary cut and the continuing salary freeze. During the 
period beginning in 1968 salaries soon fell well behind the inflationary 
increases in prices, impelling President Perry and the Board of Trustees 
to increase faculty and administrative salaries even when the income vs. 
expenditure ratio dictated, from the College's point of view, a freeze or 
even a cut. Meanwhile, the costs of building and operations found 
colleges like Goucher unprepared. A nationwide dilemma, this financial 
crisis involving soaring costs and falling enrollments had special im- 
plications for higher education. With their declining incomes, colleges 
and universities suffered both from inflation and from policies used to 
combat inflation.^ The decision by the federal government to help curb 
the inflationary spiral by spending less money resulted in a decline in the 
growth of support for higher education — which required even more 
support precisely because of inflation. Private donors and foundations 
found themselves solicited for funds on behalf of important causes other 
than education; as benefactors responded to these requests, academic 
institutions invariably suffered a corresponding decline in gifts. 

The student revolt also took its toll. Dr. Cheit notes the impossibility 



The Perry of measuring precisely the impact of campus disturbances on institu- 

Administration tional income, but he estimates the effect as substantial. Campus unrest 

produced adverse reactions among both private donors and state legis- 
latures, and this negative response touched even campuses which had 
not experienced disturbances. Furthermore, stock market trends did not 
favor academic institutions since stock prices, unlike prices in general, 
were falling, thereby reducing the tax incentive for potential private 
donors of major contributions. Dr. Cheit observes that "people who are 
losing money in the stock market are not eager to give large gifts to their 
alma mater."** In short, for colleges in general and for Goucher in 
particular, the fundamental problem was rooted in two uncontrollable 
factors: rampant inflation and falling enrollments.'' 



The Goucher Scene: While many readers are doubtless aware that Goucher found itself in a 

The Threat of grave financial position by the end of the Perry years, fewer probably 

Financial Disaster understand the precise circumstances that brought the College to the 

point of declaring a state of financial exigency. 

Needless to say, any institution's financial objective is to spend no 
more than it receives, ideally ending each fiscal year with a surplus. 
While a college operates on a nonprofit basis, surpluses added to the 
endowment provide a hedge against years in which a balanced budget 
cannot be achieved. An institution can tolerate an occasional deficit if, 
over several years, an equivalent amount in surpluses wipes out the red 
ink; real trouble looms when an uninterrupted series of deficits forces 
the Board of Trustees to use expendable endowment funds to meet 
expenses. Goucher shared this necessity with many institutions. Ac- 
cording to a 1 97 1 study by the Association of American Universities, 
one quarter of all private colleges and universities were, by that date, 
drawing on endowment to meet operating expenses.'" Since a college 
cannot make legal use of most endowment funds for current operations, 
only a limited amount of expendable endowment is available. If a long 
series of deficits leads to the exhaustion of expendable funds, an institu- 
tion, regardless of the size of its total endowment, can no longer pay its 
bills and — failing a sudden windfall — must close its doors. While this 
description of a complicated process has been deliberately simplified, 
it makes an important point: by 1973 Goucher faced the prospect of 
exhausting its expendable endowment in a very short period, a situation 
which forced the trustees to mandate drastic action. 

During the new depression, as Dr. Cheit pointed out, sharp inflation 
combined with a drop in enrollments led to income lagging behind costs 
in most private institutions; one quarter of them had to draw on expend- 
able endowment to meet operating expenses. That Goucher fell into this 
group is clear from table 7, which shows the projected and actual defi- 
cits incurred from 1968 to 1973. 

These discouraging figures inevitably raise the question of whether or 
not the College did everything possible to alleviate the situation. To 
respond, we must first examine the sources of Goucher's income and the 
nature of its expenditures. Only by achieving an equilibrium between 
the two could the College have avoided the accumulated deficit of $ i .z6 
176 million. 



Table 7 Goucher College Projected and Actual Deficits, Major Financial 

1968-73 Problems 

Fiscal Year Projected Deficit Actual Deficit 



1968-69 


($ 75,000) 


($ 77,000) 


1969-70 


(51,000) 


(218,000) 


1970-71 


(40,000) 


(364,000) 


1971-72 


(260,000) 


(149,000) 


1972-73 


(143,000) 


(450,000) 



Total Actual Deficit (1,258,000) 

Source: Office of the Vice-President for Financial Affairs. 



Goucher's sources of income fall into two categories: •' 

1. Income the College can expect annually and estimate a year in 
advance, barring sudden shifts in the prevailing circumstances, 
including: 

a. Tuition income, which can be predicted accurately provided 
there is no major unexpected change in the enrollment pattern 

b. Annual giving, such as the Alumnae Fund and corporate sup- 
port 

c. Return on the endowment, assuming a relatively steady market 

2. Exceptional sources of income, including such nonannual, one- 
time events as: 

a. Unexpected major gifts, grants, or bequests that increase an- 
nual income significantly, but only once 

b. The sale of unneeded property, which, of course, can be sold 
only once 

c. Capital campaigns and other special fund-raising efforts inde- 
pendent of annual giving — the only one of these three items not 
normally restricted as to use 

Goucher's expenses fall into two similar categories: 

1. Regular ongoing expenses, such as: 

a. Salaries, wages, and benefits for faculty, staff, and hourly 
workers 

b. Administrative expenses, including funding of such offices as 
Public Relations, Admissions, Development, and Student Life 

c. Academic program expenses (other than salaries) 

d. Financial aid for students 

e. Energy costs (coal, oil, electricity) 

2. Exceptional expenses, which may be capital in nature (like the first 
two of the following examples) or ongoing (like the last two): 

a. Cost of constructing new buildings 

b. Payment of debts incurred by borrowing (to cover construction 
costs or current expenses) 

c. Sudden increases in energy costs 

d. Sudden increases in wages, such as those caused by the union- 
ization of hourly workers 

Balancing the budget begins with creating a budget, an undertaking 
that presupposes the administration's abilty to predict with reasonable 
accuracy the revenue and expenditures the College will encounter the 
following fiscal year. Some of the categories of exceptional income and 




Brownlee Sands Corrin lecturing in Merrick Lecture Hall, 1970s 



178 



outflow listed above are often not foreseeable, but Goucher's budgets 
were normally kept sufficiently flexible to take account of all but the 
most extreme deviations from the norm. Only unanticipated heavy ex- 
penditures cause a problem. During most of the Perry years, however, 
the process of anticipating even regular, annual income and standard 
expenditures seems to have eluded the grasp of the College's financial 
prophets.'- A glance at table 7 suggests that unless both the Board of 
Trustees and the administration took total leave of their senses during 
the last four reported years (when their deficit projections were wildly at 
variance with the actual outcomes), the prevailing economic situation 
must have fluctuated so violently that a reasonable estimate of even 
normal, ongoing revenue and costs was impossible. 

Dr. Cheit's analysis provides some clues as to why this situation 
existed, at Goucher and throughout American higher education. But 
while Goucher shared many problems with other institutions, it also 
had to contend with its own adversities. To analyze and evaluate the 
College's attempts at budget management in this period, we must con- 
sider the array of economic circumstances that affected Goucher in these 
years. 

By 1969 the need for increased financial resources for operating 
expenses caused President Perry to appoint a new trustee Development 
Committee to assist him in all areas of financial planning for the imme- 
diate future." By this time the necessity for planning was as obvious as 
the difficulties involved. The first two Perry administration deficits were 
already history, so the problem had become how to avoid another. To 
increase income and to decrease expenses were the goals. Since tuition. 



the principal source of annual income, depends on the successful re- 
cruitment of new students combined with a high retention rate of cur- 
rent students, the decision to increase tuition while simultaneously at- 
tempting to increase the size of the student body provided a logical first 
step in the effort to improve Goucher's financial outlook. 



Major Financial 
Problems 



Raising tuition and fees is a relatively simple operation, and the board 
took this step almost every year during this period. The College in- 
creased tuition for 1969—70 from $1,600 to $1,800 and raised fees for 
room and board from $ i ,3 50 to $ i ,400, though this action alone would 
not prevent a deficit. The board increased tuition and fees by another 
$ 3 00 for 1 970-7 1 , ''* and repeated the process (with minor variations in 
the amount of increase) in 1973—74.1^ 

While raising tuition and fees proved comparatively easy, increasing 
enrollments did not. Reporting to the Board of Trustees on October 28, 
1967, Dr. Perry noted that although the current student body stood at 
1,037, the College had experienced a small but steady decline in the 
number of applicants for admission over the preceding two years. "In a 
time of increased competition from less expensive state-supported in- 
stitutions," he said, "the College will have to plan and work vigorously 
to attract students of high calibre.""' Goucher's plan for solvency in- 
cluded recruiting students attracted by the new calendar and curricu- 
lum, a more flexible program, and new living arrangements; yet this 
operation, even if successful, would help the financial situation only if 
current freshmen, sophomores, and juniors returned to the College the 
following year. In 1970—71 such was not the case. While the original 
budget for that year had assumed full residence halls, an unprecedented 
number of withdrawals during the summer resulted in a smaller student 
body and fewer residents. Consequently, the College fell short of income 
projections by approximately $1 i5,ooo.i'' 

A similar situation occurred in 1972—73, when the opening enroll- 
ment showed a decrease of thirty-seven from the previous year. Contrib- 
uting factors included the large graduating class of 1972, the necessity of 
reducing the graduate program to save costs, the continuing large num- 
ber of withdrawals of upperclass students transferring to other institu- 
tions, and the effects of students graduating in less than four years — a 
process encouraged by the CFC report. 

By January 1973 enrollments were dropping even at public institu- 
tions in twenty-one states; only two-year community colleges were in- 
creasing in size and number. Goucher's 1972-73 undergraduate enroll- 
ment had declined to 979 full-time equivalents from 1,029 in 1971-72- 
Admissions applications appeared to be 25 percent behind 1971—72 as 
of the same date. Because of falling enrollments, a significant 1972—73 
deficit seemed unavoidable. While the budgeted deficit was $142,792.50, 
the College had spent 45 percent of its total budget by December 31. 
Enrollments were 2 percent less than budgeted, the fall dormitory occu- 
pancy 5.4 percent lower (down from 821 to 777), and the January-term 
enrollment 9.1 percent below expectation; accordingly, actual income 
might predictably fall $100,000 below the amount budgeted, and the 
true deficit might be twice the anticipated figure.'* 

Goucher's enrollment decline reflected both national and local 



Tuition and 
Enrollment 



trends. Apart from the national drop in the population of college-age 
students, the effect of the new depression influenced parents' ability to 
pay the fees of private institutions, in addition, perhaps caused by the 
desire of many undergraduates to experience more varieties of educa- 
tion than one institution could supply, an unprecedented increase in 
student mobility developed across the country. In a relatively small 
women's college this tended to lead to more student withdrawals than 
entering transfers could replace. Attrition figures increased as Goucher 
continued to graduate senior classes larger than entering freshman 
classes and as students took advantage of the enhanced opportunities to 
complete their degree requirements in less than the usual time. 



Given the apparently intractable nature of the enrollment decline, the 
College's next option in its attempt to control the budget deficits was to 
reduce its principal category of annual expenditures: the salaries, wages, 
and benefits it provided its employees. In the language of economists, 
the academic enterprise is labor intensive. The principal cost of operat- 
ing a college is the money spent on personnel. An institution can freeze 
or even diminish salaries and wages, as Goucher did during the Great 
Depression, or it can reduce the size of its work force; but unlike the 
business world, a college must reckon with the fact that many of its most 
expensive employees, the senior faculty, have tenured positions that can 
be eliminated only in very exceptional circumstances. 

At the beginning of the Perry administration, the president and the 
trustees showed more concern for the negative effects of inflation on 
the faculty's cost of living than for the negative impact of salaries on the 
budget. Thus, despite the treasurer's estimate that the deficit for 1968- 
69 would be $50,000, President Perry announced that the College 
planned to raise staff salaries and wages. Meetings with the Faculty 
Salaries Committee and the Board of Trustees, he explained, had re- 
sulted in the establishment of procedures to adjust faculty salaries in 
times of inflation within the limits of Goucher's financial resources; thus 
Faculty increases for the following year would probably average 6 to 7 
percent.!' A few months later, several changes enhanced the faculty's 
(though not the College's) financial circumstances: increased travel al- 
lowances to professional meetings, total disability insurance, and im- 
proved faculty salaries, which placed Goucher among the top 125 col- 
leges in terms of average and minimum faculty earnings.'" Unfortu- 
nately, these benefits came at a price. According to the Budget Commit- 
tee report, the operating budget for 1969-70 was $4,430,886, an in- 
crease of 8 percent over the preceding year. Included was an expected 
deficit of $51,000, attributed to declining enrollments and increases of 
approximately 7 percent in salaries and wages. Provision for a pension 
plan for hourly and clerical workers placed further demands on the 
College's resources. 

Reluctance to balance the budget at the expense of personnel became 
even more apparent a year later when, on the recommendation of the 
Faculty Salaries Committee, the Executive Committee approved an ex- 
tremely generous program of faculty salary raises, which would add 
approximately $135,000, or nearly iz percent, to the budget for full- 




Major Financial 
Problems 



Students picnicking on campus, mid-1970s 



time faculty compensation. The increases would benefit primarily asso- 
ciate and assistant professors.-' The minutes of the Executive Commit- 
tee for December 7, 1970, record, however, that "because of the present 
financial situation, [President Perry] had advised the faculty that they 
could not look forward to increases in salary in the year ahead, and that 
tight budgetary controls would be necessary. "-- 

The outlook brightened a little in March 1971 when the College 
received grants of $50,000 from the Perot Foundation and $zoo,ooo 
from the Andrew Mellon Foundation, the latter to be spent specifically 
for faculty salaries in not more than three years. The Executive Commit- 
tee congratulated Dr. Perry for obtaining these grants and approved his 
recommendation that the Mellon grant be used to increase faculty sal- 
aries by 5 percent and that funds from other sources be used to provide 
like increases for administrative and clerical personnel. ^^ 

Despite the Mellon grant, the deficit mandated a reduction in expen- 
ditures for faculty salaries. The very high proportion of tenured faculty 
at senior (hence expensive) ranks posed one obstacle to such a reduc- 
tion. While tenure was preserved, promotions underwent more careful 
scrutiny, with promotions to the rank of associate professor terminal in 
certain cases. 

Since maintaining the 1:12 faculty-student ratio within the frame- 
work of the enrollment decline implied reducing the faculty by six or 
seven full-time equivalents, a Priorities and Planning subcommittee was 
appointed to study ways of achieving faculty reductions.-'* 




All College Barbeque, Freshman Week, late 1970s 



While faculty salaries constituted the largest share of the College's 
salary and wage package, any significant increase in the wages of hourly 
workers would naturally have a deleterious effect on the effort to bal- 
ance the budget. Thus, the College's financial outlook was not improved 
when, in an election held at the College, the hourly wage earners chose 
to be represented by the Amalgamated Municipal Employees Laborers 
International Union, AFL-CIO, Local 1231.-'' On January 16, 1971, 
Vice President Casey informed the Board of Trustees that the unioniza- 
tion of hourly wage employees would add approximately $4 1 ,000 to the 
1970—71 budget, with further increases of about $50,000 in each of the 
following two years. By May 1 97 1 the unionization of the hourly work- 
ers and the College's food contractor had added about $180,000 in 
annual expenses. 

Goucher, in short, found itself in a very awkward posture. Falling 
enrollments, the hourly workers' unionization, and the inexpedience of 



wholesale cuts in the faculty forced the College to consider other items 
on the list of income sources and expenses that it could try, respectively, 
to enhance or decrease. On the expense side of the ledger, the only 
realistic possibility was to trim administrative and academic costs (apart 
from salaries) to the greatest degree possible. 



Major Financial 
Problems 



The College could not afford to reduce one administrative-academic 
expense: financial aid to students. This would only exacerbate the en- 
rollment decline. Part of the College's deficit in 1969—70 reflected an 
increase of $38,000 in the scholarship budget.-'' Other contributors to 
the 1969—70 deficit included additional personnel and increased pro- 
motional efforts in the Admissions Office and more intensive promo- 
tional work for the Alumnae Fund.-^ These expenditures, which illus- 
trate the melancholy fact that one must often spend money to increase 
income, were clearly intended to enhance enrollment and annual giving. 
But by 1 97 1 the gravity of the situation required budget tightening in all 
departments and offices. Indeed, some steps taken because of the ac- 
cumulating deficits were almost pathetically stringent. For example, 
according to the minutes of the Executive Committee meeting of 
November 8 President Perry stated that in the interests of economy there 
would be no gifts that year from the College to board members; he 
planned to write a Christmas letter instead, a plan which met with the 
unanimous approval of the committee.'** 

Far more significant and extensive cuts appeared elsewhere in the 
area of administrative costs. On January 27, 1973, President Perry com- 
mented to the Board of Trustees on the heroic effort of offices and 
departments to hold down expenditures; annual expenses over the past 
five years had risen only from 5 to 10 percent, and the previous year's 



Administrative 
and Academic 
Program Costs 




Students in Nuts & Bolts minicourse, January 1971 



183 



expenses had risen only 3 percent. Dr. Perry also announced, in accor- 
dance with financial Vice President Robert H. Barnett's recommenda- 
tion to the Executive Committee,^^ the closing, beginning the following 
academic year, of the Mary Fisher and Froelicher dining rooms, to be 
used for other purposes not yet determined. Mr. Barnett had suggested 
that this action would produce a saving of $50,000 to $75,000 a year. 



Ironically, all these frustrating attempts to manage the budget under 
highly adverse conditions were further impeded by actions taken prior 
to the onset of the budget crisis itself: the construction of expensive 
buildings. 

When Stimson Hall was built, the Board of Trustees and the admin- 
istration assumed that for the indefinite future the College could 
count on a highly qualified student body of approximately 1,000. Ac- 
cordingly, they built Stimson Hall to bring the housing facilities on 
campus to the appropriate capacity.^" The construction of Stimson Hall 
created an outstanding debt of $637,000 inherited by President Perry — 
a debt that rose by 1 97 1 to $73 5,000 as a result of high interest rates. To 
liquidate this encumbrance before it reached totally unmanageable pro- 
portions, the trustees found themselves forced to sell securities and 
divert bequests, gifts, and grants that would otherwise have helped to 
increase the endowment. 

In addition to coping with the considerable debt left over from past 
construction, the board also found itself faced with the need to build the 
new wing of the Julia Rogers Library. The lowest bid for the addition 
exceeded the budget allotment by $160,000, and the Executive Com- 
mittee asked Vice President Casey to explore with the architects and the 
builder possible changes in design to bring about savings. On October 
Z3 Dr. Perry informed the Executive Committee that Messrs. Moore 
and Hutchins planned to shave $100,000 to $150,000 from the cost of 
the library addition by simplifying heating and plumbing and eliminat- 
ing air conditioning systems. With this accomplished, the College 
would accept new bids on the project. In due course the Executive 
Committee awarded a contract for the new library wing at a total cost of 
$845,685.3' 

The library addition was necessary despite the reduction in the size of 
the student body, since the critical mass of a college library of any 
respectability depends on factors other than the precise number of un- 
dergraduates. Nonetheless, the debt on old construction and the ongo- 
ing cost of the new library wing had a devastating effect on budget 
management when combined with the effects of the new depression. 
The impact of continued borrowing received extensive and serious dis- 
cussion at the Board of Trustees meeting on October 31,1 970; Mr. Eney 
raised again the question of continued borrowing in the November 9 
meeting of the Executive Committee and suggested that unrestricted 
bequests the trustees had placed voluntarily (not at the donor's request) 
in the expendable endowment be used to cover the plant deficit arising 
from the construction of Stimson Hall. Mr. Eney also reminded the 
committee of the need to build up the expendable endowment, though 
his previous recommendation would have, temporarily, the opposite 



effect. Indeed, increasing the expendable endowment was virtually im- 
possible under the prevailing circumstances. On January 4, 1971, for 
example, Vice President Casey recommended to the Executive Commit- 
tee that it apply a $476,000 Ford Foundation grant and a $160,000 
Conner bequest to the plant deficit, which had now reached $735,000.'- 



Major Financial 
Problems 



One chance of offsetting the construction debt lay in the sale of un- 
wanted land, particularly the twenty-six-acre parcel on Fairmount Ave- 
nue. Rekindled a number of times in the sixties and seventies, this hope 
seemed always destined for extinction by decisions of the zoning board 
or the courts. For example, at the Board of Trustees meeting on January 
18, 1969, Mr. Eney advised against any expectation of immediate addi- 
tional revenue from land sales. He reported that the Court of Appeals 
had ruled against the College in a zoning case, thereby voiding the sale 
of the twenty-six-acre tract on Fairmount Avenue to Sears Roebuck and 
Hochschild Kohn. On May 24 Mr. Eney concluded a meeting of the 
Board of Trustees with one of the tersest reports in Goucher history: the 
Land Development Committee, he said, had "met, talked, and decided 
nothing."'*'' Not until October 13, 1971, could Mr. Eney say anything 
positive about land sales; even then, though encouraging, the news was 
hardly thrilling: he announced the sale of the Amoco service station 
property on Dulaney Valley Road for $160,000. Not until 1982 did the 
College finally sell the Fairmount Avenue tract for $3,000,000.-''' 



The Hope 

of Selling Land 



Unable to balance its budgets through purely internal efforts, the Col- 
lege had to seek outside assistance. As early as February 19, 1968, the 
trustee Executive Committee authorized a special subcommittee to 
study the possibility of a fund-raising campaign to help eradicate the 
plant deficit. The prospects were not too favorable. President Perry 
scotched any hope that the College's income problem might be miti- 
gated by significant gifts or grants (in the absence of a campaign) when 
he reported to the Board of Trustees on January 18, 1969, that Goucher 
had received no large financial grants during the preceding year. Even 
so, a generous gift from an alumna had covered the expenses involved in 
the work of the Committee on the Future of the College, and two other 
gifts from members of the board had enabled the College to begin the 
development of courses in the sciences for nonscience majors. 

Despite Dr. Perry's discouraging comments, the trustees resolved, on 
October 25 to "recognize the critical need for additional funds for the 
support of the College and authorize the Development Committee to 
proceed with planning a major capital funds campaign."^' 

On January 17, 1970, Mr. Edgar Gemwell, whom the College had 
engaged for pre-campaign work, expressed the view that the campaign 
should begin in the fall of 197 1 and continue for thirty weeks. On June 
1 2, 1 97 1, Mr. Donald H. Wilson, Jr., the campaign chairman, proposed 
to the board that the campaign run through June 30, 1973, with the 
Baltimore phase extending from September 1971 through June 1972 
and the national phase running from September 1972 through June 
1973- 



Bequests, Gifts, 
Grants, and 
a Campaign 



i8s 



The Perry At the same meeting of the board, Vice President Casey projected the 

Administration following budget figures for the years 1971—72 and 1975—76: 



1971-72 1975-76 

Income $5,043,000 $5,133,000 

Expenses 5,187,000 6,190,000 

Deficit 144,000 1,057,000 

Mr. Casey listed increased tuition, room and board fees, and alumnae 
giving as possible ways to reduce the 1975—76 deficit by $698,000. 
Even with these steps, the College would still need additional income of 
$359,000, or approximately $9 million in new endowment. The Board 
of Trustees then unanimously passed a motion that Goucher commit 
itself to a $10,000,000 capital funds campaign, and in its issue of Sep- 
tember 24, 1 97 1, Weekly announced the start of a campaign called the 
Program for Human Resources. 

At the Faculty meeting of October 20 Vice President Casey cited a 
recent study indicating that more than one hundred American private 
colleges had exhausted their liquid assets and were on the brink of 
disaster. Moreover, the situation was growing worse: deficits far greater 
than expected were increasing. If present trends continued, 254 colleges 
surveyed would be eligible for bankruptcy in ten years. '^ Goucher Col- 
lege, Mr. Casey reminded the faculty, had suffered deficits of $77,000 in 
1968—69, $218,000 in 1969—70, and $364,000 in 1970— 71. The trust- 
ees had covered these deficits by using expendable endowment funds. 
Without the current campaign, Mr. Casey suggested, the annual deficit 
for 1975—76 would probably approach $327,000. With a successful 
campaign, the College should just break even in 1975—76. 

Commenting on Mr. Casey's remarks, President Perry called atten- 
tion to the Board of Trustees' willingness to begin the campaign without 
first balancing the budget, but only with the understanding that the 
deficit must be gradually eliminated. He further observed that all pro- 
jections included steady increases in faculty salaries with no catastroph- 
ic cuts in the academic program.^'' 

Because of careful preparation, the campaign by September 22, 
1 97 1, had raised $2,000,000, mostly in pledges. By November 1971 it 
had raised $2.5 million, and the State of Maryland had granted the 
College $113,000; on January 15, 1972, the campaign had passed 
$3,000,000 in pledges and bequests.^** Meanwhile, the Alumnae Fund 
had continued to break its own record, the 1971—72 total reaching 
$298,000 — well over the goal of $275,000. Gifts and grants in 1971 — 
72 amounted to more than $2,000,000, one of the largest annual totals 
ever. The market value of the endowment on June 30, 1972, exceeded 
$15,000,000, compared with $1 1,000,000 five years earlier. Campaign 
pledges and bequests approximated $4,000,000, with over $2,000,000 
already in hand. On January 27, 1973, Mr. Wilson reported to the 
Board of Trustees that the campaign had received about $4,750,000 
with the help of a generous bequest from Mr. George Todd.'"* When 
President Perry presented his eighteenth and last report to the trustees at 
the board meeting on May 1 9 he announced that the campaign stood at 
$5,723,61 1.76, approximately 60 percent of its goal of $10,000,000, 
and the Alumnae Fund was more than $ 1 4,000 ahead of the year before. 




Alumnae Fund boosters, 1979 



It was already clear from these figures that however encouraging they 
might seem at first hearing, the campaign was not progressing at a 
propitious rate. 

President Perry had announced his resignation effective June 30, 
1973, and since the election of a new president could not possibly take 
place before the beginning of the 1973-74 college year, the trustees 
decided not to move the campaign outside the Baltimore area until the 
spring of 1974. 



Whether or not Goucher could have prevented this fiscal crisis provided 
a continuing topic for debate, especially among the faculty, whose con- 
cerns mounted annually with the deficits. Though the assumption that 
the College had either not done enough to avert the deficits or had taken 
the wrong steps generally prevailed, little or no agreement about specific 
solutions to the problem emerged. 

The general state of the economy, marked by rampant inflation cou- 
pled with a falling stock market produced the combination of rising 
expenses and diminished income that afflicted all private — and many 
public — institutions. In addition income from government sources de- 
creased when education ceased to enjoy the priority status it had re- 
ceived during the post-Sputnik period. Added to the enrollment 
decline — itself sufficiently damaging to cause the demise of some insti- 
tutions — the net effect for Goucher was devastating. 



Conclusion 



187 



The Board of Trustees minutes for January i6, 1971, note that, ac- 
cording to President Perry: 

The Carnegie Commission study and the American Council on Educa- 
tion survey both point out that most private colleges are in definite financial 
trouble: "serious" if not yet generally "desperate." Most colleges surveyed 
reported a modest surplus in 67—68, were in the red in 68—69, and quin- 
tupled their deficits in 69-70. Goucher showed a $20,000 surplus in 67-68, 
a deficit of $77,269 in 68-69, and a deficit of $218,053 i" 69-70. General 
causes continue to be inflation, poor stock market with resultant lower 
income from gifts and endowment, and the continuing rise in costs.'"' 

What was the College's response to this situation? To increase in- 
come, the College raised tuition and fees as often and as much as possi- 
ble without affecting enrollment so adversely as to cancel the benefits. 
To reduce expenditures, the College made drastic economies in depart- 
mental and office budgets, reducing the annual increase to 3 percent in 
1971-7Z, a very small fraction of the rise in costs at the time. Despite 
the difficulties in raising funds in such an economically troubled period, 
the College mounted a $ 1 0,000,000 campaign, even though the series of 
budget deficits presented a less than alluring picture to prospective 
contributors and in spite of the national decrease in giving because of 
prevailing economic conditions. 

Only when these measures failed to stop the deficits did the Board of 
Trustees, which feared it would exhaust those endowment funds it was 
legally entitled to spend, resort to the faculty reductions whose imple- 
mentation would eventually become the responsibility of the new presi- 
dent. 

What might Goucher have done that it did not do? Should the Col- 
lege at least have implemented some of these measures earlier? Could 
more foresight at the time have significantly changed the eventual out- 
come? The question of whether or not Goucher could have prevented 
the near disaster that loomed in 1972-73 and lasted well beyond may 
never be answered. Nonetheless, the fact that Goucher survived a nearly 
catastrophic situation once again should be grounds for thanksgiving,**' 
especially in a period that found the best analysts caught in a financial 
whirlwind that made virtually impossible accurate predictions of in- 
come and expenditures or, indeed, any clear discrimination between 
economic mirage and reality. 



X T E E N 



A Final Overview 
of the Perry Years 



E 



fach of the three administra- 
tions considered so far in this history had its own distinct problems, to 
which the three presidents responded in their individual styles. Presi- 
dent Kraushaar's nineteen years were highly unusual, not only in the 
history of Goucher College, but in the history of American higher edu- 
cation as well. As he remarked in chapter 5, Dr. Kraushaar came to 
Goucher "in a time of rapid growth in American education." The out- 
standing accomplishments recounted in part 2 depended both on his 
personal talents and on his exceptional opportunities. He benefited 
from the "period of prosperity" that fell, in the words of the final report 
of the Carnegie Commission, between two periods of "genteel poverty" 
or — to use another of the Commission's terms — between two economic 
"depressions." 

The Robertson and Perry administrations, however, provide signifi- 
cant parallels: grave financial difficulties caused by similar economic 
frustrations — falling enrollments, a poor stock market, interest rates 
detrimental to the College, land sale problems, comparatively low fac- 
ulty and staff salaries, insufficient endowment, and conditions unfavor- 
able to fund-raising. Furthermore, the two presidents and their faculties 
chose to devote much of their attention to revitalizing the College's 
curriculum and restructuring its governance. 

While the parallels between the Robertson and Perry years are im- 
pressive, the differences between them are even more so. The Goucher 
students of the late sixties and early seventies were obviously not all 
radical, but they grew up in a period in which they and their contempo- 
raries, highly concerned with social and political injustices of all kinds, 
especially opposed all military involvements. In the Robertson period 
the students made great efforts to support the Allied struggle in the 
Second World War, and because the faculty, administration, and trustees 



Similarities 
and Differences 
between the 
Robertson 
and Perry Eras 



189 



fully endorsed the student viewpoint, their shared patriotism united the 
College in a profoundly felt moral cause. The Vietnam War, and particu- 
larly the invasion of Cambodia, had a very different impact on the 
students of the sixties. The effects of the generation gap were much more 
apparent; atomic weapons added frightening dimensions to questions 
of war and peace; and the impact of the mass media was profound — the 
students of the Robertson era had no television. Consequently, the gen- 
erally good-natured acceptance of the status quo that preceded and 
followed the highly active, patriotic response to the Second World War 
became, in the Perry years, only a memory. 

Although the faculty and administration in the late sixties and early 
seventies shared, in some measure, the students' concerns about a num- 
ber of current ethical questions, from the activist students' point of view, 
the faculty — and more especially the administration — constituted part 
of the Establishment and therefore became automatically suspect. Fur- 
thermore, students of this generation often, though not always, man- 
ifested less patience and tolerance than their teachers, deans, and presi- 
dents. In short, the preponderant student outlook during the Perry years 
was drastically different from what it had been during the Robertson 
period and more at variance with the majority viewpoint of the faculty 
and administration. 

The way the Perry administration handled curricular and governance 
reform differed profoundly from the Robertson period, in 1934, as in 
1968, the president and the faculty worked together to bring about 
revisions in the academic program and the system of College govern- 
ment; but in 1934 the College did not seriously involve students in the 
deliberations. In 1968 and the years following, student views strongly 
influenced the ultimate decisions. What led, in fact, to the creation of the 
College Assembly was the students' insistence on their right to be heard. 

Clearly, student contributions to the debates were often very valu- 
able, especially within the subcommittees of the Committee on the 
Future of the College. However, the emotionally charged atmosphere of 
the period, generated by preoccupations both related and unrelated to 
College affairs, impelled undergraduates to adopt a sometimes strident 
form of rhetoric not conducive to clear analytical thinking about the 
long-range consequences of the changes they hoped to introduce. The 
accusation by the Students' Organization and the senior class of 1969 
that the faculty had proved unprofessional and dishonorable when it 
chose not to change the graduation requirements for the class of 1969 
one month before commencement is a notable example. The faculty was 
split on many of the issues as well, but that this student display of 
emotion did not favorably impress the majority of the faculty or admin- 
istration is hardly surprising. It certainly did not knit the College to- 
gether. 

Unlike the faculty of the thirties, which accepted as best it could the 
economic strictures posed by the Great Depression and voted its own 
four-year salary reduction, the faculty of the Perry years, though reg- 
ularly briefed by the president and the financial vice president on the 
economic situation of the College and of higher education in general, 
showed no strong desire to make financial sacrifices for the sake of the 
College. When, in one faculty meeting, a member reminded her col- 
leagues of the salary cut voted by the faculty during the Robertson years. 



her implied suggestion received no positive response. Rather, the pre- 
vailing tendency was to criticize the administration or the Board of 
Trustees for having somehow provoked the current financial crisis, or at 
least for having failed to deal with it satisfactorily. 

The nature of the Robertson and Kraushaar periods warranted an 
initial general overview followed by an essentially chronological ap- 
proach to a variety of themes, characterizing the earlier chapters of this 
history. During the Perry administration, on the other hand, specific 
problems so engrossed the members of the community that little time 
remained for unrelated activities. Nonetheless, in the late sixties and 
early seventies, the trustees and the administration necessarily coped 
with matters not immediately involved with fiscal solvency; the faculty 
discussed topics unrelated to governance or curricular changes; and 
while student life, at least as Weekly reflected it, seemed almost entirely 
tied up in social and political causes, one student triumph lifted the 
spirit of the entire community: the victory of the undefeated team 
which, after five weeks on national television, won the coveted College 
Bowl. 



A Final Overview 



Goucher's College Bowl team made its first appearance on national 
television on February 9, 1969.' We have seen in chapter 12 that a 
similar team won its first three encounters ten years earlier, only to go 
down to defeat on its fourth attempt. Since the program stipulated that 
any team winning five straight victories automatically retired as unde- 
feated champion, we can easily imagine the excitement when Weekly 
announced on February 28 that Goucher's College Bowl team had beat- 
en High Point College, Louisiana State University, Wesleyan University, 
and Gonzaga University and now faced its final match with Sweet Briar 
College. When the Goucher team won its fifth and last contest, the 
trustee Executive Committee passed a resolution in its honor,- and in 
keeping with the team's suggestion, its winnings of $19,500 were later 
combined with subsequent contributions to endow the 1969 College 
Bowl Scholarship. Over the summer, contributions increased the total to 
approximately $27,000;^ by late October the scholarship fund had 
exceeded its goal of $30,ooo.-' 



The College 
Bowl Victory 



One year after the retirement of President Kraushaar, Dean Geen an- 
nounced that she would retire in June, 1968.^ Her retirement marked 
the end of the eighteen-year tenure of one of Goucher's truly outstanding 
and memorable deans. Dr. Perry appointed a faculty committee to ad- 
vise him on his nomination of a successor to Dean Geen,^ and on 
January 20, 1968, he informed the Board of Trustees that on the recom- 
mendation of the faculty advisory committee, he nominated Dr. Rhoda 
M. Dorsey as dean and vice president. The board prompdy approved 
Dr. Dorsey's appointment.^ 

Several events enhanced the end of President Perry's first year.* The 
presidential inauguration took place with appropriately colorful pag- 
eantry on Friday, May 3,1968, and a month later, at the commencement 
ceremonies on June 9, Goucher conferred honorary degrees on Mr. H. 
Vernon Eney, trustee and College counsel, and on President Emeritus 



The Board of Trustees 
and the 
Administration 



Otto F. Kraushaar. The following year, at the commencement exercises 
on June 15, 1969, the College bestowed an honorary degree on Dean 
Emeritus Elizabeth Geen. 

On January 8, 1 968, the Executive Committee decided to retain Mr. 
Robert Geddes of Princeton as architect of the proposed fine arts build- 
ing. Although no funds were available for construction, the committee 
reiterated, on September zz, 1969, its commitment to the principle of 
the fine arts building and voted to proceed with working drawings 
costing approximately $70,000.'^ At the same meeting the Executive 
Committee approved the dedication of the Robertson wing of the Julia 
Rogers Library, to take place on October Z5. 

When, in 1970, the trustees decided to incorporate the Board of 
Overseers within their own board. President Perry informed the Execu- 
tive Committee that the overseers, consulted individually, had expressed 
pleasure at the prospect of their forthcoming status as full trustees. The 
unification of the Boards took place on February 1, i97i.'o 

Less than a month earlier, on January 16 Dr. Perry informed the 
Board of Trustees that he had received an invitation to become president 
of another college, but had decided to decline. Two years later. President 
Perry received another invitation to become president of a college, 
Agnes Scott, and this time he responded favorably. On April z, 1 97 3 , the 
Executive Committee, on behalf of the Board of Trustees, accepted with 
deep regret President Perry's resignation, effective June 30. 

At the same meeting Mr. Walter Sondheim, chairman of the Board of 
Trustees, distributed a draft letter to the president of the Students' Or- 
ganization describing the proposed composition of a Search Committee 
for a new president. The current by-laws of the College called for a 
committee composed of four trustees, including at least one alumna, 
and three members of the faculty elected by their peers. The Executive 
Committee, Mr. Sondheim announced, would recommend to the board 
the addition of two representatives of the administration and two stu- 
dents to be selected by the student body from the senior and/or junior 
classes. The Executive Committee then approved the proposed changes 
in the by-laws. 

In light of Dr. Perry's resignation, Mr. John Henry, Director of Col- 
lege Relations and Development, proposed, and the committee 
adopted, certain changes in the future course of the capital campaign. 
Hoping to complete the Baltimore stage of the campaign before Presi- 
dent Perry's departure, Mr. Henry recommended postponing the na- 
tional phase, involving principally alumnae solicitations, from its origi- 
nal starting date of September 1973 to one year later, when a new 
president would be in office. Meanwhile, during the academic year 
1973-74, the fund-raising effort would concentrate on major and spe- 
cial prospects, on national corporations and general welfare founda- 
tions, and would continue more extensively the Goucher Now program, 
a traveling presentation involving several Goucher representatives de- 
signed to reach areas of high alumnae concentration throughout the 
nation. 

On May 19, 1973, Mr. Sondheim advised the Board of Trustees that 
Dean Rhoda Dorsey would be acting president of the College and that 
Professor Kenneth Walker would be acting dean, both appointments 
effective June 1 5. On June Z5, on recommendation of Acting President 



Dorsey, the Executive Committee changed Mr. Henry's title from Direc- A Final Overview 

tor of College Relations and Development to Vice President for Develop- 
ment and Public Relations. 



While approval and implementation of the new curricular reforms and The Faculty 
changes in governmental structure occupied much of the Faculty's time 
and energy during the Perry years, several other actions and events 
concerning the faculty deserve mention. 

President Perry announced on October 14, 1 967, that the program of 
interinstitutional cooperation involving Goucher, Loyola, Morgan, and 
Towson State would go into operation in January 1968. 

In October 1971 the faculty suffered the loss, within a space of one 
week, of two of its most respected colleagues. Memorial services were 
held in Haebler Memorial Chapel on October 8 for William L. Neu- 
mann, professor of history, and on October 1 5 for Walter E. Morris, 
professor of religion. 

After months of debate, motions, amendments, and counter-amend- 
ments, the Faculty finally approved on November 10, 1971, a system of 
course evaluations to be conducted under the aegis of the Committee on 
Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure. 

On September 5, 1972, the Faculty adopted a motion to extend the 
vote in its meetings to faculty members with the rank of instructor who 
were in their first year of service, subject to necessary action by the 
Board of Trustees to change the relevant by-laws; and on October 25 the 
Faculty voted to constitute an ad hoc committee on grievance mecha- 
nisms to investigate the desirability of establishing a Faculty Grievance 
Committee. 

Perhaps the most significant development with regard to the faculty 
in the Perry years was the degree to which it changed in outlook. Over 
the course of many years, all faculties undergo certain changes in 
viewpoint — as, indeed, they must if they are not to lose touch entirely 
with their students, who also change from generation to generation; but 
rarely has there occurred such a remarkable volte-face in a short space of 
time as the one that took place between i960 and 1975. 

The dramatic upheaval in worldwide attitudes discussed in chapter 
1 3 was almost certainly, like all revolutions, the cataclysmic outcome of 
a long evolutionary phase in which pent-up feelings reached a point at 
which only an explosion could release the accumulated pressure. Even 
in cases in which the pressure was less extreme — and Goucher College 
was probably such an instance — the detonation elsewhere created a 
sufficient echo to bring about a shift in student outlook that lasted for 
more than a decade. Moreover, many of the faculty who came to the 
College in the sixties and early seventies were young enough to identify 
with the student revolution, having lived their earlier lives through the 
evolutionary phase that preceded it. Small wonder, therefore, that a split 
occurred between the generations represented in the faculty, just as it did 
in society as a whole. 

Much of this is evident in the events recounted in the two preceding 
chapters. The outspoken student demands were widely supported by 
the student body as a whole; the students were, after all, of a single 
generation. The faculty's response was, for many reasons, split: not just 



The Perry by the different ages of its members, though that had a visible effect, but 

Admmistration also because the older faculty had had enough experience of both chang- 

ing student values and of the changing circumstances underlying them 
to be torn between arguments from the past and from the present. This 
ambivalence among some of the more senior faculty members, com- 
bined with the outlook of the younger members, may have produced the 
final, largely favorable, response to the report of the Committee on the 
Future of the College. In any event it is clear that the faculty as a whole 
underwent significant change during the Perry years from what it had 
been in the mid-Kraushaar era. There remained, however, that basic 
unity manifest in the concern for undergraduate teaching, academic 
standards, and scholarly productivity that, tying together all genera- 
tions of Goucher faculty and students, is basically responsible for the 
reputation of a College that has, for one hundred years, absorbed 
change without altering its essential nature. 



The End of the Perry At the faculty meeting of May 25, i973» Professor Brooke Peirce pre- 
Administration sented an eloquent testimonial to President Perry and moved that the 

text be incorporated in the permanent record of the meeting in gratitude 
to Marvin Banks Perry, Jr. The motion, seconded, was adopted by accla- 
mation. In response. President Perry expressed his admiration for the 
faculty and the College and urged loyal support of the acting president 
and the acting dean, and continued faith in the future of the College. 



Part Four 



^^^ ^^fr 



The D o r s e y 
Administration 

( I 9 7 3 - ) 






^!^«^ 



:i3:3^.:,s^as§s^ 



S^ 






"^ 





ht 



s^mt 



SEVENTEEN 



A New President 

Faces Old 

Challenges 

( I 9 7 3 - I 9 7 9 ) 



W 

Y T hen 1 



hen Rhoda Mary Dorsey be- The Continuing 
came acting president of the College, a national search had begun for a Struggle to Balance 
new president. It concluded on April 15, 1974, when Dr. Dorsey herself the Budget 
was elected eighth president of Goucher College, the first woman to 
hold that office.' 

The change in Goucher's administration had no discernible effect on 
the national economic situation, and Acting President Dorsey faced 
exactly the same dismal picture her predecessor had confronted for the 
previous five years. By the end of fiscal 1972—73, the total accumulated 
deficit had reached $1,258,000; moreover, as the deficit continued to 
rise, enrollments — always the key to a balanced budget — continued to 
fall, as table 8 illustrates. 

On September 4, 1973, 241 new freshmen had enrolled, compared 
with 277 in 1 97 1 and 281 in 1972. From these figures and the table of 
deficits from 1968-69 through 1972-73 (see table 7), it could be con- 
cluded that the budgeted deficit for 1973—74 ($425,819) would be 
exceeded, possibly by a substantial amount. While the basic fiscal 
soundness of the College remained, it could not continue if this pattern 
of deficits went unchecked.^ 

Accordingly, the Board of Trustees took action. On September 22 
Mr. Nicholas Petrou, chairman of the board's Financial Planning Com- 
mittee, called his colleagues' attention to the significant drop in full-time 
equivalent enrollments and noted that the College faced a deficit exceed- 
ing even the one already budgeted. Accordingly, he said, the Financial 
Planning Committee had undertaken a calculated reduction in bud- 
geted expenses for 1973—74. By the next board meeting, Mr. Petrou 
expected the committee to have begun work on a five-year plan that 
would at last put an end to the series of deficits. At the board meeting 
held on October 13, Mr. Petrou presented the committee's interim re- i; 

Students walking by Haebler Memorial Chapel, 19605 



The Dorsey 
Administration 




President Rhoda M. Dorsey, 1973- 



port on eliminating the deficits by 1975-76. "This plan," he said, 
"involves reductions of faculty, staff and administration, as well as in- 
creases in Goucher's tuition by 10 percent in 1974—75, and 6 percent in 
1975-76." In the words of one trustee, the board regarded the plan to 
eliminate deficits in two years as "a very positive action."' 

At the Faculty meeting held on October 17, Richard R. Palmer, vice 
president for financial affairs, elaborated on the trustees' plan for deal- 
ing with the College's fiscal problems. He first reviewed the current 
situation, noting that before the budget could be balanced, he expected 
the total accumulated deficit to rise from the present figure of $1.26 
million to nearly $1.8 million. The anticipated deficit for 1973-74 was 
$425,000, but the real deficit would probably exceed $500,000, pri- 



Table 8 First Term Total Full-Time-Equivalent 
Enrollments, 1968-75 



Academic Year 


FTE Enrollments 


1968-69 


1,057 


1969-70 


1,052 


1970-71 


1,044 


1971-72 


1,030 


1972-73 


992 


1973-74 


953 


1974-75 


921 



198 



Source: Office of the Registrar. 



marily because of decreasing second semester enrollments. At this rate, A New President 

the College would exhaust its entire expendable endowment by the end 
of 1973-74. The gradual enrollment decline from 1,023 in 1968— 69 to 
94Z in the fall of 1973 represented a loss of over $300,000 in income, 
and there was no guarantee that future enrollments would increase. For 
these reasons, the Financial Planning Committee of the board had man- 
dated balancing the budget as soon as possible within the five-year plan. 
To comply with this mandate, the following steps would be taken: 

I. Cut expenses in all possible budget areas, including personnel 
reductions in all divisions of the College 

z. Permit no increases in non-fixed cost items of the 1974—75 budget 

3. Reduce non-fixed costs wherever possible 

4. Provide no salary increases the following year for faculty or ad- 
ministrative staff 

5. Raise tuition by 10. z percent 

6. Revise the investment objectives of the College portfolio to maxi- 
mize short-term yield over the next one to two years'* 

7. Increase year-round utilization of the physical plant^ 

On October 17, 1973, President Dorsey appointed an ad hoc Faculty 
Committee on Program Reduction to help develop guidelines on what 
might and should be done in case financial exigency made it necessary to 
reduce the faculty of the College. 

One month later Mr. Walter Sondheim, chairman of the Board of 
Trustees, proposed to the Executive Committee that the following reso- 
lution be presented to the full board at its special meeting to be held later 
the same day: "The Board delegates to the Executive Committee the 
power to revise the investment policy of the College to provide whatever 
amount is required as operating revenue, and to instruct the administra- 
tion of the College to exercise all feasible means, using the plan devel- 
oped by the Financial Planning Committee as a guideline, to balance the 
operating budget by fiscal 1975—76."*' When the Executive Committee 
endorsed Mr. Sondheim's resolution unanimously, the die was cast: the 
seemingly unstoppable deficit budgeting would, in fact, end. 

Action to implement the mandate began immediately. In order to 
meet the board's requirement, the Financial Planning Committee and 
the administration decided to reduce the operating expense budget for 
the current year by $105,000.^ As a result of the economy drive, the 
1973-74 deficit was reduced from $425,000 to $398,913, but this 
amount, added to the deficits of the five preceding years, raised the total 
accumulated deficit to $1,655,917. Even more ominous was the state of 
the expendable endowment, which, by June 30, 1974, had dropped to 
$77,000.** In light of these figures, Mr. Petrou called to the attention of 
the board a projected $100,000 shortage in income for 1975-76 which 
would have to be made up by reductions in personnel; half this amount 
would involve cuts in the size of the faculty. ** 

Once the administration and the Board of Trustees had decided to 
reduce the faculty. President Dorsey and the College's new dean and vice 
president, James Billet, met to decide which faculty positions the Col- 
lege would terminate. Subsequently, the president informed the individ- 199 



The Dorsey ual faculty involved and then advised the full faculty about the situation. 

Administration In accordance with a proposal from the local chapter of the American 

Association of University Professors, which the president accepted, the 
Faculty formed an ad hoc Review Committee to study the proposed 
cuts. The committee's charge was either to approve the announced cuts 
or to suggest alternatives. Meanwhile, Dean Billet had begun to prepare 
a longer-range plan concerning curriculum and staff within the con- 
straints of the budget, his decisions to be forwarded with all available 
relevant materials to the ad hoc committee in February 1 975 . On advice 
of the (trustee) Faculty Personnel Policies Committee, the president rec- 
ommended to the Executive Committee that a procedure be established 
involving a faculty grievance committee to hear all faculty complaints. 
In certain areas cases might move from the grievance committee to a 
committee of the board. Having h^ard President Dorsey 's explanation, 
the Board of Trustees voted to authorize the Executive Committee to 
approve the establishment of a grievance procedure as recommended.'" 

Dean Billet outlined for the Board of Trustees on January 11, 1975, 
the general strategy the administration planned to adopt in an effort to 
stem an enrollment decline that showed no sign of abating. The only 
way to attract more students, the dean suggested, would be to accom- 
modate to some degree the prevailing pre-college and undergraduate 
preoccupation with career preparation. Eliminating certain depart- 
ments and programs involving tenured faculty would be necessary; at 
the same time, the College would introduce new programs funded by 
both old and new resources. The administration would effect these 
changes as rapidly as possible over the next two years.'' 

At the Executive Committee meeting on February 17, "Mr. Sond- 
heim expressed concern for certain faculty members now tenured who 
would no longer be employed by the College when contemplated 
changes in the curriculum became effective. This concern was shared by 
all members of the Executive Committee, who agreed to help where 
possible find employment for such persons whose positions are termi- 
nated."'- 

Prior to Christmas 1974 the plan had been to cut $100,000 from the 
budget; by February, with admissions applications running far below 
the year before, the projected average enrollment for 1975-76 was 805. 
The amount to be cut from the budget was therefore increased to 
$294,000.'^ 

Dr. Dorsey spoke to the Faculty on March 5, 1975, about the pro- 
posals for reducing the faculty's size. In 1 975-76, she said, one full-time 
position would be terminated in each of the following departments: 
English, Mathematics, Philosophy, Physical Education, and Education. 
In 1976-77 the College would terminate both full-time positions in 
Classics and one position in each of the following departments or sec- 
tions: German, French, Physics, and Religion. In the Department of 
Biological Sciences a coordinated series of unpaid leaves over two years 
would be followed by a retirement and the termination of the vacated 
position. Separated faculty would be given all possible help in finding 
positions outside the College. 

Subsequently, certain faculty members expressed concern to the 
2.00 chairman of the Board of Trustees about the decision to eliminate course 



offerings in Classics. "The Executive Committee," the minutes record, A Neiv President 

"received the suggestions with appreciation."'"' 

When the adminstration reached its decisions concerning the cuts to 
be made in the tenured faculty, the ad hoc Faculty Review Committee 
interviewed ail department chairmen involved and any faculty members 
who wished to talk with the committee. The committee then made 
counterproposals to the administration which were considered and ac- 
cepted. As matters stood, the most significant reductions in 1976—77 
would involve tenured faculty, including elimination of the entire De- 
partment of Classics and the majors in Physics and German, resulting in 
the termination of two faculty positions in Classics and one each in 
Physics and German, as well as one position in French. '^ Speaking to the 
Board of Trustees on May 10, President Dorsey stressed an important 
point: "We are cutting into the quality of the College — not so much by 
the elimination of one area of the academic program, but in the estab- 
lishment of a budget that is tight in the extreme, that leaves the College 
with reduced staffing, and that strains existing staff to the point of 
exhaustion and sometimes to the point of despair. Any institution with 
strength and inner confidence can take take this for a time, but not 
forever; it is the responsibility of all Trustees to remember this.""' 

By the opening of the College year in 1 975, the financial situation was 
under control; for the first time in seven years, 1974-75 ended with a 
surplus of about $1,000, but progress had been less marked in dealing 
with the enrollment problem. Although the interest in early graduation 
had slowed, the number of entering students continued to drop, as 
shown in table 9. 

On October 18 the Finance Committee reported to the Board of 
Trustees that year-to-date investment results showed a return of 13 
percent on a market value of $9,439,109 for the College endowment 
fund. Mr. Petrou reported a projected balanced budget for fiscal 1975— 
76 and cumulatively for the next five years. The fiscal year 1975—76 
actually ended with a surplus of $5,051; this came about despite a 
projected deficit of $67,493 and represented a second consecutive year 
of small operating surpluses after six consecutive years of substantial 
operating deficits. Unfortunately, projections for 1976—77 included a 
$197,000 deficit, with a decreased fall semester enrollment. In October 
1976 the College's expendable endowment was $220,000, and the fu- 
ture outlook, based on a level enrollment of 750, indicated further 
budgeted operating deficits in the absence of additional income or re- 
duced costs.''' The College treasurer, Mr. George Thomsen, had earlier 

Table 9 Entering Freshmen, 1970-75 



Year 


Entering Freshmen 


1970 


318 


1971 


276 


1972 


281 


1973 


249 


1974 


244 


1975 


230 



Source: Minutes of the Board of Trustees, 
October 18, 1975. 



noted that as of late May 1976, the expendable endowment stood at 
$ 5 00,000. If Goucher spent $ 1 97,000 of this amount, 40 percent of the 
expendable endowment, then at that rate the College would be out of 
business in two and a half years."* 



Following the recommendation of the Faculty Review Committee, Presi- 
dent Dorsey and Dean Billet proposed terminating, in addition to both 
members of the Classics Department (Professors Chester F. Natunewicz 
and Robert C. Schmiel), one tenured faculty member each in French and 
German. '^ Using Goucher's five criteria for faculty excellence,-" Dean 
Billet discussed with the Executive Committee all faculty members in 
these disciplines and named the two — Associate Professor Hertha 
Krotkoff in German and Assistant Professor John K. Donaldson, Jr. in 
French — that he and President Dorsey regretfully agreed must be termi- 
nated. The Executive Committee voted to endorse this recommenda- 
tion. 21 

Response to the elimination of the Classics Department and the ter- 
mination of several tenured faculty took various forms. On November 
10, 1975, the Executive Committee discussed a recent series of letters to 
the editor of the Baltimore Sun that seriously criticized Goucher and its 
administration for planning to eliminate the Classics Department. The 
Executive Committee was concerned about how Goucher could make 
clear to the public the reasons for such a decision. Recognizing that a 
letter from Goucher to the Sun would not be helpful since the College's 
position had already been fully explained in that forum, the committee 
decided that at least the rest of the trustees, not all of whom lived in or 
near Baltimore, should receive another letter explaining the College's 
point of view. 

Meanwhile, Professors Krotkoff and Donaldson took their cases to 
the Faculty Grievance Committee, from which these issues moved to the 
trustee Panel on Grievances. On March i, 1976, the panel recom- 
mended to the Executive Committee that it concur in the president's 
decision not to reappoint Professor Krotkoff. The Executive Committee 
adopted this recommendation unanimously. The panel made no recom- 
mendation at this time in the case of Professor Donaldson, having agreed 
to refer the matter back to the Faculty Grievance Committee for further 
consideration and action. 

On April 19 the Panel on Grievances called the Executive Commit- 
tee's attention to the procedures the dean had followed in reaching his 
recommendation — in which the president concurred— that Professor 
Donaldson be terminated. Mr. Donaldson had filed a grievance contain- 
ing two parts: (1) that the procedures culminating in his termination 
were inappropriate, and (2) that he should not have been the faculty 
member terminated. The Faculty Grievance Committee ultimately de- 
clared that it found the procedures which led to Mr. Donaldson's termi- 
nation inappropriate, but it declined to consider which faculty member 
should be terminated. Since the trustee panel could only hear issues on 
which the Faculty Grievance Committee had reached a decision, the 
panel could make no recommendation on Mr. Donaldson's second 
point. On the first point, it recommended that the Executive Committee 
concur in the procedures adopted by the administration in reaching its 



decision to terminate Professor Donaldson. The Executive Committee 
adopted this recommendation unanimously. 

Meeting on May Z2, the Board of Trustees dealt with the implications 
of the termination of tenured faculty. In response to a question, Dean 
Billet explained that the original purpose of tenure was to provide a 
faculty member a guarantee of academic freedom and to prevent termi- 
nation for reasons other than cause or financial exigency. Mr. Eney, the 
College counsel, noted that while tenure was not defined in the College 
by-laws, he assured the trustees that Dean Billet's description was cor- 
rect. In Mr. Eney's opinion this meant that a faculty member who had 
tenure could not be released as long as the College had need of him or 
her, but Mr. Eney did not feel that faculty had to be retained if, because 
of curricular or enrollment changes, such faculty were not needed. Presi- 
dent Dorsey noted that policy statements concerning terminations re- 
sulting from financial exigency that had been made by the American 
Association of University Professors during the past two to three years 
had not been endorsed by the American Council on Education or by the 
Association of American Colleges; therefore Goucher, as a college, was 
not bound by these policy statements.-- 



A New President 



As a result of their terminations, three faculty members filed suit against 
the College. The Board of Trustees had received a recommendation 
from the Executive Committee on May 2z, 1976, not to settle out of 
court on any pending case, a decision that was reaffirmed by the Execu- 
tive Committee on December 6. 

Professor Donaldson filed a suit in state court but delayed bringing it 
to trial pending decisions in the other cases. Ultimately, his suit was 
dropped.--' 

Professor Chester Natunewicz also brought suit in state court, but the 
trial was delayed. ^^ Although Mr. Natunewicz had found employment, 
he continued his suit, later scheduled to be heard on March 10 and 1 1, 
1977. After a two-and-a-half-day trial held in Towson in May 1977, 
Judge Frank E. Cicone found Goucher College not guilty of the charges 
brought against it by Professor Natunewicz. There was no appeal.^^ 

The third case was much more protracted. Professor Krotkoff, since 
she was not an American citizen, brought suit in federal court, begin- 
ning with a request for a preliminary injunction that led to a week of 
hearings in August 1976. Mrs. Krotkoff 's request was denied, and the 
suits she had brought against individual members of the Board of Trust- 
ees were dropped at the end of the hearings. The suit against the College 
was scheduled to go before a jury in December 1976.^^ The trial date 
was later postponed to May 2, 1977, when it was heard before Judge R. 
Dorsey Watkins and a jury in the United States District Court for the 
District of Maryland.-^ Four points were argued by Mrs. Krotkoff 's 
lawyer: (i) tenure guarantees a recipient a position until age sixty-five 
barring dismissal for cause, notwithstanding financial conditions or 
program changes within the institution; (2) Mrs. Krotkoff was the 
wrong person among the two tenured members of the German section 
to be selected for termination; (3) questions were raised about the defi- 
nition and extent of financial exigency; and (4) questions were raised 
concerning the attempts of the College to find reemployment at the 



Litigation Involving 
the College 



The Dorsey 
Administration 



College for Mrs. Krotkoff. When the jury found in favor of Mrs. 
Krotkoff and awarded her $180,000, Goucher's lawyers asked Judge 
Watkins to set aside the verdict, which he did in a hearing held on July 
I z, 1977. In his oral opinion Judge Watkins stated that "Unfortunately, 
1 feel that in this case, the verdict is against the clear weight of the 
evidence and that it will result, if permitted to stand, in a miscarriage of 
justice. . . ."^** Commenting on the four points raised by the plaintiff. 
Judge Watkins said: "I . . . find as a fact and conclude as a matter of law 
that financial exigency or the elimination of a department or of a course 
was a justifiable basis for the termination of the incumbant in that 
occupation or department, provided that the termination was bona fide, 
that it was done for reasons of reorganization of the university and not to 
get anybody, and not because of a desire to cut down generally on 
tenured faculty."-' Amplifying this point. Judge Watkins noted that all 
sides agreed that the trustees had acted in good faith and that "there was 
certainly very substantial evidence that financial conditions at Goucher 
were worsening and had worsened, there certainly was adequate evi- 
dence to justify the finding that there was a financial exigency." '" Judge 
Watkins further found that there was significant evidence in support of 
the choice of the person to be terminated, '' and that the College had 
done what it could to find a suitable alternative position for Mrs. 
Krotkoff. "Incidentally," he concluded, "I think the testimony was quite 
clear that there was no legal obligation to retrain a displaced tenured 
faculty member.^- Thus, Judge Watkins found for the College on all four 
points raised by the plaintiff. 

Mrs. Krotkoff appealed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in 
Richmond, Virginia. In October 1978 the court affirmed the judgment 
of the lower court, thereby finding in Goucher's favor.^^ That decision 
concluded the litigation brought about by the terminations of tenured 
faculty in 1975. 



Light At the End Faculty reduction was by no means the only approach the trustees took 

of the Tunnel in dealing with the budget crisis. Energy, particularly fuel oil, 

constitutes one of the College's most significant items of expenditure, 
and in 1973 the nation experienced a fuel shortage that nearly forced 
the College to close temporarily. President Dorsey assured the Executive 
Committee on December 10 that Goucher was making sure that heat 
and light were not wasted. The College had enough fuel to last until 
about the middle of January, and the fuel dealer was optimistic about 
future supplies, but if the College were to run dangerously low on oil, it 
would close at that time and resume again when adequate fuel was on 
hand. Fortunately, this situation did not come about, but strong mea- 
sures were taken to reduce energy consumption. In this instance the fuel 
shortage, rather than its cost, led to curtailed use of heat and electricity, 
but later in the decade the price of fuel became the overriding factor, 
though shortages continued to cause concern. During the period be- 
tween the January and spring terms of 1977, when no students were in 
residence, some buildings had thermostats set at fifty-five degrees, sav- 
ing 9,500 to 12,000 gallons of oil and three to four thousand dollars. 
Residence thermostats were later set at sixty-five degrees in hope of 
204 saving zo— 30 percent on energy.^"* 



A year later the Finance Committee approved hiring a consultant, A New President 

ThERM, Inc. (The Energy Resources Management Company), whose 
study would cost $48,000 the first year and up to $18,000 the second 
year, depending on what remained to be done. ThERM expected result- 
ing energy cost savings to be $70,000 a year with no major capital 
expenses. ^^ As a result of ThERM's work, oil usage dropped 9 percent, 
electricity 15 percent, and gas 9 percent between January and June 
1978, for a saving of $27,000.'^ 

In an effort to increase income, the Executive Committee approved a 
plan on January 21, 1974, to convert the entire investment portfolio 
into bonds, principally utility bonds, and short-term reserves; further- 
more, the national phase of the campaign was scheduled to begin its 
alumnae solicitations on October 2, 1974. By mid-February 1974 cam- 
paign pledges totalled $7,000,000. While national alumni/alumnae 
support for colleges represented about 16-18 percent, Goucher alum- 
nae support had been running 50-53 percent.^^ On May 5, 1975, the 
Executive Committee voted to close the campaign on June 30, 1975, 
even though it had not reached its goal of $ i o million.^^ The total finally 
raised amounted to $9,078,705 .3 7, nearly a million dollars short of the 
goal. 

While all these efforts to increase income were laudatory, the root of 
the matter continued to be enrollments. On March 24 Vice President for 
Development John Henry reported to the Executive Committee on 
favorable comments the College had received on its recruitment adver- 
tisements currently running in The New Yorker and Newsweek. "These 
ads have produced some inquiries from potential students," Mr. Henry 
said. They did not, however, prove to be a bonanza. The enrollment 
situation remained cloudy; President Dorsey expressed concern to the 
Executive Committee on July 12, 1976, about the decrease in applica- 
tions from Maryland, especially Baltimore students. Various organiza- 
tional shifts would be made to address this problem, she promised. 
When the College opened in September, the decline in enrollments that 
had begun in 1969 had not yet ended; 209 freshmen had entered the 
College, compared with 266 in 1974, and the current FTE count was 
819, compared with 903 in 1975. Accordingly, the College raised tu- 
ition and fees for both 1977—78 and 1978—79 to help increase in- 
come.^'* 

At last, in 1977, enrollments began to improve. As of September i 
Goucher had an enrollment of 888 as compared to 819 the year be- 
fore.""' By the following September the outlook was even brighter, as 
indicated in table 10. 

As enrollments improved, so did the budgets, largely as a result of 
deferred maintenance. The 1976-77 budget deficit was $66,524, but 
1977—78 ended with a $10,000 surplus, and 1978-79 produced a 



Table W 


First Semester En 


rollment Figures, 


1976-78 




Fall 1976 


Fall 1977 


Fall 1978 


FTE 

Headcount 

Freshmen 


819 
899 
209 


893 
970 

282 


944 

1,023 

296 



Source: Minutes of the Board of Trustees, September 30, 1978. 



The Dorsey 
Administration 



& 



K«^M«8ijHiSiii 




Studio art class, late 1970s 



surplus of $38,000.'*' As the operating budgets returned to the black, 
the endowment also increased, the portfolio passing $14,000,000 in 
September 1978, and falling just short of $1 5,000,000 one year later. '*2 

Meanwhile, the senior staff and the assistant to the president began 
work, in conjunction with the trustee Priorities and Planning Commit- 
tee, on a five-year long-range plan that was expected to produce results 
affecting the 1979—80 budget."" 

On November 6, 1979, the Executive and Development Committees 
of the board met jointly to consider a campaign. Goucher's long-range 
plan called for improvements that would cost $17.5 million, and the 
College had retained Ketchum, Inc., to determine what portion of that 
could be met by special gifts, grants, and bequests in a campaign over 
the next five years. Ketchum's recommendation was to proceed at once 
to undertake a capital campaign with a goal of $ 1 2 million. Mr. Donald 
DeVries, chairman of the Board of Trustees, expressed his disappoint- 
ment with this recommendation. He felt that the $ 1 2,000,000 goal was 
too low and based on an unduly pessimistic estimate of support. The 
increased strength of the College over the past several years should, he 
thought, generate more support than the recommendation suggested. 
Mr. Jack Pearistone moved to raise the goal to $14,000,000. When a 
vote was taken, the results favored Mr. Pearlstone's motion, but the 8-5 
outcome represented an insufficient majority to warrant undertaking a 
campaign of such dimensions. The joint committee therefore decided to 
report its discussion and to refer final decision to the full Board of 
Trustees. It further voted to retain Ketchum, Inc., to direct the cam- 
paign. On January 7, 1980, the full board voted to approve the cam- 
paign, to be conducted under the leadership of Janet Jeffery Harris, '30, 
with a goal of $14,000,000 and the theme For Women of Promise. 



EIGHTEEN 



Other 

Developments in 

the Life of 

the College 

( I 9 7 3 - I 9 7 9 ) 



M 



.uch of the administration 
and the trustees' time during the first six years of the Dorsey administra- 
tion was absorbed by the budget crisis and the ensuing litigation, but 
many other developments, not money-driven, occurred in the life of the 
institution during the same period: new senior administrators, decisions 
about the future of the College, trustee concerns about personnel pol- 
icies, and student life activities. • 



A number of changes took place in the College's senior staff between Administrative 
1973 and 1979, the most important, of course, being the election of Changes 
Goucher's first woman president. After a national search for the best 
candidate, the Presidential Search Committee recommended Dr. Dor- 
sey's election. Mr. Walter Sondheim, chairman of the Board of Trustees, 
said that he had asked Dr. Dorsey if she would be willing to accept the 
presidency if it were offered to her by the board. According to Mr. 
Sondheim, Dr. Dorsey replied that after thoughtful consideration, she 
would be pleased and honored to accept. She did, however, ask those 
trustees who voted for her election to do so only with the understanding 
that they would agree to work more actively in behalf of the College in a 
number of areas, but most importantly to strengthen the College's finan- 
cial position. "Thereupon, upon motion made and duly seconded, it 
was unanimously voted to elect Dr. Rhoda M. Dorsey to the Office of 
President of Goucher College, effective as of the date of this meeting. "^ 
President Dorsey 's inauguration took place on October 2, 1974, with A 
Celebration of Women as its theme. 

At the end of the 1973-74 academic year, Acting Dean Kenneth O. 
Walker, professor of history, chose early retirement, thereby bringing to 
a close a distinguished twenty-eight year career. A search had already 



The Dorsey begun for a dean, and on September 9, 1974, Mr. Sondheim welcomed 

Administration and introduced to the Executive Committee Goucher's new dean and 

vice president, Dr. James Billet, former assistant vice president for aca- 
demic affairs at the State University College of Arts and Sciences at 
Geneseo, New York. 

The Executive Committee minutes for December 1, 1975, record 
that "it is with great sadness that the Executive Committee heard from 
President Dorsey that Dean Martha Nichols plans to retire at the end of 
this academic year."' In July 1976 Ms. Julie Collier- Adams assumed her 
duties as the new dean of students. 

Finally, Mr. John J. Henry, vice president for development and public 
relations, resigned to become director of development for the National 
Symphony Orchestra. To replace him, President Dorsey appointed Pa- 
tricia P. Purcell, former vice president for development at Wells College, 
to the corresponding position at Goucher. 



Evaluation of the The decisions taken in 1973 to cooperate with the Johns Hopkins Uni- 

College by the Middle versity and remain a single-sex institution resulted from a process of self- 
States Association assessment initiated by Goucher; four years later the College embarked 

on more formal kinds of self-assessment necessitated by the process of 
reaccreditation. First, the College's teacher-training program was re- 
evaluated by a visiting team in February 1977 as a preliminary step 
towards reaccreditation by the Maryland State Department of Educa- 
tion. Then, in November 1977, Goucher underwent an institution-wide 
evaluation by a committee representing the Middle States Association of 
Colleges and Schools, a process repeated every ten years. In preparation 
for the Middle States visit, the College undertook, in 1976—77, a self- 
study of the total institution to insure that it was run efficiently, in 
accordance with professional standards, and in a manner properly re- 
sponsive to the four basic questions the visiting Middle States team 
would ask: 

1. What are Goucher's objectives? 

2. Are these objectives appropriate to Goucher at this time? 

3. Are all Goucher programs and activities designed to achieve these 
objectives? 

4. Are the resources available to carry through the programs and 
activities of the College, and will they continue to be available? 

"The self-study," Dr. Dorsey explained to the Board of Trustees, "is 
under the direction of Professor Musser of our Modern Languages De- 
partment, aided by a steering committee of faculty, students, and admin- 
istrators. Several committees have already been formed and are hard at 
work.""* In fact, ten committees gathered data and prepared preliminary 
reports for the Steering Committee. The self-study report, designed to 
be a candid analysis of the current condition of the College, included a 
statement of institutional goals and objectives and detailed chapters on 
the Goucher student, the curriculum and faculty, the College's financial 
and physical resources, the library. College governance and organiza- 
tion, and a discussion of outcomes of the overall program based on a 
208 recent alumnae survey, and an up-to-date record of undergraduate test- 



ing by agencies external to the College. Copious tables and appendices 
provided the factual basis for the analytical evaluation. The completed 
self-study document was sent to the members of the visiting team six 
weeks before their arrival at the College in November 1977. In 1978 the 
Middle States Association formally reaffirmed Goucher's accreditation 
without qualification. 



Other Developments 



While the visiting team of the Middle States Association did not hesitate 
to reaffirm the accreditation of the College, it did comment on the 
demoralization of the faculty, noting that "this crisis in morale is the 
most serious problem we encountered on campus."^ Indeed, during 
the period 1973-79, faculty members became more and more con- 
cerned about their status at the College (particularly after the termina- 
tion of several tenured faculty positions in 1975), and matters of tenure, 
grievance, and related topics became subjects of intense discussion in 
faculty meetings. At the same time, the Executive Committee of the 
Board of Trustees had its own concerns about the faculty. On January 7, 
1974, Acting Dean Kenneth Walker reported to the Executive Commit- 
tee that an ad hoc trustee Committee on Trustee-Faculty Relations had 
held two meetings relating to faculty salaries; reappointment, promo- 
tion, and tenure; procedures for reduction of the academic program; 
"and such other matters as seem relevant to the maintenance of a sound 
personnel policy for the Goucher faculty to help maintain a sound 
academic program and ensure the fiscal viability of the College. [The ad 
hoc committee] shall also undertake to recommend a grievance pro- 
cedure to ensure the right of appeal to individual faculty members who 
feel that their treatment has not been in accord with the established 
personnel procedures and policies of the College. It shall report to the 
Executive Committee with recommendations by May i ."<' Dean Walker 
further noted that the committee planned to consult with the Faculty 
Salaries Committee, the Committee on Reappointment, Promotion, 
and Tenure, the ad hoc Committee on Reduction of the Academic Pro- 
gram, the ad hoc Committee on Grievance Mechanisms, and individual 
faculty and trustees. 

On February 17, 1975, President Dorsey distributed to the Executive 
Committee copies of proposals from the Faculty Personnel Policies 
Committee (as it was now called) concerning (i) a grievance mechan- 
ism, (2) dismissal procedures, and (3) proposed principles for action by 
the Committee on Reappointment, Promotion, and Tenure. 

Later, Faculty II (History and the Social Sciences), expressing a sense 
that more communication was needed between the board and the fac- 
ulty, addressed to Mr. DeVries a letter recommending faculty represen- 
tation on the board. The Executive Committee referred this proposal to 
the (trustee) Faculty Personnel Policies Committee on September 10, 
1979. On December 3 the Executive Committee approved a response 
from the Faculty Personnel Policies Committee recommending that fac- 
ulty members not then be invited to become board members but that 
they be invited from time to time to board meetings to discuss "areas of 
concern."'' 

One of the most important issues facing the trustees as well as the 
faculty during these early years of the Dorsey administration was the 



Trustee Concerns 
with Policies 
Involving the Faculty 



The Dorsey 
Administration 



question of tenure. The minutes of the Executive Committee for April i , 
1974, state that after lengthy discussion of the problem of tenure at 
Goucher in relation to the present financial situation of the College, the 
following policy was unanimously approved by the committee: 

I. That the percentage of faculty on tenure be allowed to rise to 80 
percent this year, in accordance with President Perry's policy state- 
ment of October 27, 1971. This means, specifically, that not more 
than four persons will receive tenure in the academic year 1975—76. 

z. This year is the last of this policy. 

3. The Faculty Personnel Policies Committee of the Board of Trustees 
will bring a new tenure policy to the Executive Committee for con- 
sideration by the summer of 1974.** 

According to the minutes of the Executive Committee meeting of June 
25, 1979, full-time tenured faculty had reached 81 percent in 1975-76, 
but it was projected that the percentage in 1979—80 would be reduced 
to 59 percent by natural attrition, through resignations, retirements, 
and nonrenewal of untenured appointments. In order to maintain flex- 
ibility in case of a needed faculty reduction, the Executive Committee 
had earlier reaffirmed a prior policy against allowing a department to 
become fully tenured, except in the most extraordinary circumstances.'* 
All these efforts were intended to provide a sufficient number of non- 
tenured faculty positions, including at least one in every department, to 
permit possible future reductions in the size of the faculty without the 
necessity of including tenured positions. Regrettably, this safeguard did 
not protect all tenured faculty in 1980. 

On September 22, 1975, the Faculty approved a mechanism which 
the Executive Committee had accepted on September 8. The Faculty 
Grievance Committee heard its first two cases on February 21, 1976. 



Goucher Atvards On May 15, 1978, the Faculty Personnel Policies Committee recom- 

mended to the Executive Committee that the College initiate its own 
faculty awards: five prizes of one thousand dollars each. Three of the 
prizes, one given in each of the Faculties of instruction, would reward 
excellence in teaching. The fourth prize would honor outstanding re- 
search or creativity, and the fifth would recognize outstanding service to 
the College. The prizes, which have become an annual event, are pre- 
sented at the conclusion of commencement exercises; the list of faculty 
who have received the awards through 1985 is shown in table 11. 

On August 26, 1978, as we have seen, eighteen buildings that 
had been part of the downtown campus were officially entered on the 
National Register of Historic Places,'" and the College itself won an 
award when, on May 7, 1979, Governor Harry Hughes presented to 
Goucher the Maryland Historical Trust's 1979 Calvert Prize for out- 
standing contributions made through the College's program in historic 
preservation." 

On February 19, 1980, Professor Wolfgang E. Thormann, chairman 
of the Department of Modern Languages and Literatures, who had for 
many years brought Paris theatre to Goucher for the benefit, not only of 
Gcfucher students, but also of high school students throughout Mary- 

2-10 land, was invested by M. Roland Husson of the French Embassy as a 



Table 11 Distinguished Faculty Awards, 1979-85 Other Developments 

Teaching, Faculty I — Mary Hesi<y (English) 

Faculty II — Ronald Krieger (Economics) 
Faculty III — Helen Funk (Biological Sciences) 

Research or Creative Work — Marguerite Webb (Biological Sciences) 

Service to the College — Barbara Long (Psychology) and Wolfgang Thormann 
(Modern Languages) 

Teaching, Faculty I — Brooke Peirce (English) 
Faculty II— Eli Velder (Education) 
Faculty III— James L. A. Webb (Chemistry) 

Research or Creative Work — Rolf Muuss (Education) 

Service to the College — Dorothy Bernstein (Mathematics) and Geraldine 
Coon (Mathematics) 



Teachmg, Faculty I — Fred White (English) 
Faculty II— Jean Baker (History) 
Faculty III — Robert Lewand (Mathematics) 

Research or Creative Work — Ruth Wylie (Psychology) 

Service to the College — L. A. Walker (Chemistry) and Barton Houseman 
(Chemistry) 

Teaching, Faculty I — Mary Rose (Philosophy) 

Faculty II — Joe Hagan (International Relations) 
Faculty III — Martin Berlinrood (Biological Sciences) 

Research or Creative Work — Jean Baker (History) 

Service to the College — Sarah D. Jones (Librarian) 

Teaching, Faculty I — Laurelynn Kaplan (English) 

Faculty II — Katherine Shouldice (Economics) 
Faculty III — George Delahunty (Biological Sciences) 

Research or Creative Work — Robert H. Lewis (Music) 

Service to the College — Fontaine Belford, (Director, Goucher Center for 
Educational Resources) 

Teaching, Faculty I — Wolfgang Thormann (French) 
Faculty II — Julie Jeffrey (History) 
Faculty III — Raymond Geremia (Mathematics) 

Service to the College — Jane Morrell (Education) 

Teaching, Faculty I — Alma Nugent (English) 

Faculty II— Sylvia Woodby (Politics and Public Policy) 
Faculty III — Elaine Koppelman (Mathematics) 

Research or Creative Work — Esther Gibbs (Chemistry) 

Service to the College — Frederic O. Musser (Modern Languages) 



Chevalier in the French Order of Academic Palms. The French govern- 
ment bestowed the order, which had been created by Napoleon in 1 808, 
on Professor Thormann in recognition of his contributions to the 
spreading of French culture in Maryland.'- 



On the student scene the College newspaper, in keeping with the tone of Student Life 
the early seventies, changed its name on September 7, 1973, from the 
traditional Weekly to Outcry. A year and a half later the newspaper's 




Premedical stude 



editors decided that the pubHcation's style did not really live up to its 
new title, so they reverted to Weekly, beginning with the issue of Febru- 
ary 14, 1975. Three years later, on February 16, 1978, Weekly began 
publishing every other week — a policy that seemed once again to con- 
tradict its name; still, the students were reluctant to abandon the famil- 
iar title, so they compromised by printing a diagonal slash through the 
word "Weekly" and added a second line in smaller print: "A Fortnightly 
Publication."" 

Two matters of concern to the administration were the counseling of 
freshmen and the nature of the health services provided by the College. 
In September 1978 a new First Year Program began operation, its pur- 
pose to bring all counseling services to bear in a coordinated way on 
freshman-year problems, which faculty advisors and the student life 
staff recognized to be distinctive. '■♦ Also in 1978 the high cost of operat- 
ing the Health Center, combined with student wishes for health instruc- 
tion and gynecological services, led to the appointment of a study com- 
mittee composed of faculty, students, and the dean of students, with 
advice from a consultant. As a result of the study, a new health plan was 
implemented in the fall of 1979, ending the infirmary operation and 
shifting emphasis from bed-patient care to health education and con- 
sultation, with improved insurance coverage of the students. The sav- 
ings occasioned by this change resulted in a decrease in the health fee.'-' 

Student clubs continued to be active during this period, and one of 
them celebrated a notable event in April 1977: Dr. Marjorie Horning 
addressed the fiftieth annual banquet of the Chemistry Club in a year 




Student in Van Metet art studio, 



that represented the eighty-fifth anniversary of the founding of 
Goucher's Chemical Association in 1892.'* 

In terms of purely social activities, student life continued to suffer 
from the lack of a true student center. After a series of coffee houses had 
failed, the student-staffed Goucher Gooch opened in Froelicher Hall 
amid hopes that it would enjoy a more successful future. '■^ Unfortunate- 
ly, the Gooch followed the way of the coffee houses, and it became clear 
that more drastic steps had to be taken. After students had decided on 
the basic design, and an outside consultant had drawn up the plans, 
both students and administrators approved, in 1978, an interior design 
for the Greenhouse, an ambitious student center that would occupy the 
former dining room of Mary Fisher Hall.'** The Greenhouse prospered, 
but it still had difficulty competing with the Rathskeller of the Johns 
Hopkins University; it was not until the opening of the Pearlstone Cen- 
ter in Mary Fisher Hall in 1984 that students could boast of a really 
outstanding locus for their social life.'^ 

A particularly important event of this period, one that was entirely 
student initiated, was the Student Rally on March 13, 1978, which 
emerged from a felt need to publicize a long list of dissatisfactions. 
According to the March 16, 1978, issue of Weekly, "organization of the 
Rally grew out of a 'meeting of minds' in Stimson Lounge on March 5." 
The president of the Students' Organization, Catherine ("Kitty") 
Bryant, met with class presidents and others to discuss "ways of promot- 
ing campus unity." At a subsequent meeting the group began discussing 
a "protest or demonstration of some sort."-" This meeting took place 



on Sunday night, March 12, and ended in the early hours of Monday 
morning. The fourteen organizers divided into groups, three students 
departing on Paul Revere rides to deliver handwritten letters to the 
homes of trustees, informing them of the rally and asking for their 
support. Others shoveled snow to clear the College Center courtyard 
where the rally was to take place. At daybreak students began bagging 
450 lunches provided by Canteen, the College's food service, for the 
protesters. Over four hundred students turned up for the town meeting, 
at which students voiced a series of concerns ranging from College 
finances to the January Term, the shuttle service to Towson and the 
Johns Hopkins University, the freshman core course and the new hu- 
manities course (Arts and ideas), the advising program, the Health 
Center, snow removal, and a number of other issues. President Dorsey 
addressed the gathering, promising "prompt and careful consideration 
of the concerns expressed by the students."-' Proving that she meant it, 
the President met with the rally organizers the next day and began to 
review a long list of issues that had emerged from the town meeting. 
"She suggested channels for further action and, in some cases, pledged 
her personal support to student proposals. According to Org President 
Kitty Bryant, Dorsey has vowed that 'nothing will get tabled.' ""^ Dr. 
Dorsey met again with the rally leaders on March 15 for dinner and 
further discussion. "The Goucher President commented that she 
thought the rally was 'great,' and that 'by and large, the students are 
serious, constructive, and concerned.'"-^ Subsequent Weekly editions 
reflected the careful and thorough review of the student concerns and 
the actions taken wherever possible to alleviate or eliminate them. This 
protest proved to be a positive, creative, and unifying force that showed 
interest, involvement, and support of the College by its students. 



NINETEEN 



The Gaucher 

Academic Program 

( I 9 7 3 - I 9 8 J ) 



T 



, he critical problem of falling en- 
rollments, which had plagued Goucher from the beginning of the Perry 
administration, impelled the Dorsey administration to consider, as early 
as 1 974, whether or not some refocusing of the curriculum might attract 
more matriculants. On March lo, 1975, the College Assembly met to 
discuss various curricular proposals before moving them to appropriate 
committees for detailed study. Speaking to the Assembly, Dean Billet 
noted that the proposed changes should be considered first in a financial 
context. He reminded his listeners that demographers had predicted, for 
the period from 1975 to 1978, a slowly increasing enrollment for both 
private and public institutions, followed by a slowly declining enroll- 
ment, chiefly because of changes in the population. The private sector 
would find itself more and more in a buyers' market between 1975 and 
1990, with enrollments heavily dependent on satisfaction of student 
needs and desires. According to Dean Billet, "the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics estimates that in the period between 1978 and 1985, there will 
be a surplus of 700,000 graduates with Bachelor of Arts degrees enter- 
ing the labor market. Although positions in the professions and skilled 
careers will show high growth (up to 50 percent) during this period, 
liberal arts graduates without additional training will experience diffi- 
culties with employers demanding specific career training, whether the 
employers are correct or incorrect in their views. Although positions in 
the traditional professions (law, medicine, research, and teaching in 
higher education) will continue to be available, a rational response to 
the demand for specially trained liberal arts graduates between 1975 
and 1990 must be made."' 

The March 7, 1975, issue of Weekly had provided descriptions of 
proposed new programs as well as details about the elimination of some 
existing ones. "The two kinds of proposals go together," Dean Billet 



The Rationale 
for Curricular Change 
in the Seventies 
and Eighties 



explained to the College Assembly, "because the trustees, legally re- 
sponsible for the financial affairs of the College, have mandated a bal- 
anced budget for the existing programs while allowing some deficit 
spending for new programs only. This requires a cut of $2.00,000 in the 
next two years in the instructional budget. "' 

Proposed changes in the academic objectives and programs for the 
future included, according to the dean, an emphasis on: 

1. Literacy, the only business of the College, a part of every course, 
but especially of the proposed Core Course 

2. The maintenance of intellectual values and of rigorous intellectual 
discipline as the significant basis for other programs, notably the 
departmental major, and for the specific needs of women students 

3. Preparation for careers and for the professions (maintenance of the 
liberal arts commitment to graduate programs in law, medicine, and 
university teaching and research), but including also preparation and 
training for students with varied interests in objectives other than the 
life of the mind per se 

4. Attention to the needs of women of all ages who are interested in 
life-long learning and opportunities for pursuing it^ 

Dean Billet listed the proposed additions to the departmental offer- 
ings as follows: 

I. Economics (business economics) 
z. Mathematics (computer science) 
3. History (historic preservation) 




Chemistry student, 1980s 



4- Political Science (public affairs) The Academic Program 

5. English (journalism, art criticism, technical writing, etc.)'* 

The dean added that "these departmental changes are proposed to 
meet the needs and interests of students— different from those con- 
cerned with the traditional pure liberal arts program — in a pluralistic 
curriculum which Goucher is able to offer within the resources we 
have."- 

In a continuation of the College Assembly's consideration of new 
career-oriented courses, on March 1 2 Dean Billet made the following 
points: 

I. In economics, the business economics course enabled one 1974 
senior to take a position with a New York bank, and another to take 
one with the Comptroller of the Currency, both at high starting 
salaries. Six other majors have entered reputable law, graduate, and 
business schools. Similar courses are offered at Bryn Mawr and 
Swarthmore. 

z. In the proposed computer science program, eight courses in 
mathematics will be required — nine are currently required in the 
mathematics major — plus three courses in computer science. 

3. In visual arts, proposed courses include work in art conservation 
and ceramics. 

4. The proposed addition of work in scientific or technical writing 
would be added to the student's full major in the discipline of her 
choice. 

5. Internships in history and political science (already in use) and 
proposed work in public affairs offer students experience which may 
mean the difference between employment and unemployment in the 
job market.^ 

The point of these observations was to allay fears that Goucher was 
renouncing the liberal arts in favor of preparation for careers ex- 
clusively.^ Many faculty members had expressed concern about this 
possibility, particularly those whose departments were experiencing se- 
rious declines in course enrollments and were therefore candidates for 
staff reductions or even program elimination. Dean Billet, the principal 
architect of the new curricular emphasis reflected in these programs, 
was therefore at pains to make clear his intention to permit new oppor- 
tunities for career preparation to develop within the curriculum without 
eliminating the basic liberal arts orientation that had always character- 
ized Goucher's course of studies. 



In the summer of 1976 an Academic Planning Committee consisting of The Academic 
three faculty members was formed to consider and design certain new Planning Committee 
undergraduate and graduate programs. The College had already intro- 
duced such new programs as dance, performing arts, and computer 
science, but it was unlikely that these changes alone would be enough to 
increase enrollment. The committee's view was that pre-professional 
and professional offerings could be developed without subverting the 
basic liberal arts mission of the College. Two new programs were soon in zi 



draft stage: management administration and a graduate program in arts 
therapies.** 

The Academic Planning Committee, which in 1980 consisted of five 
faculty members elected by the Faculty, four faculty members appointed 
by the dean, and the directors of admissions and career development, 
issued a report on May 2.^ The committee had been charged with 
determining principles to govern the creation of new programs, recom- 
mending criteria for discontinuing instructional programs, and recom- 
mending unifying themes that should run through the new academic 
programs of the College. Their report accepted provisionally Dean Bil- 
let's recommendation to move ahead in developing new programs in 
management, communication, and computer science. It also supported 
an increase in the number of hours taught by faculty members and 
suggested a procedure for determining teaching positions most appro- 
priate for termination. The Executive Committee accepted the report on 
June 2 and congratulated the faculty for its positive recommendations. 

Although some women's colleges were reporting enrollment in- 
creases, total enrollment at women's colleges was continuing its long 
decline, and Goucher's enrollment reflected this decline. Applications to 
the College were down approximately 20 percent since 1977, the attri- 
tion rate of full-paying students exceeded 20 percent in each of the two 
previous years and was rising, and the size of the college-age cohort in 
the geographical areas of interest to Goucher could be expected to 
decrease by 27 percent in the coming years. 'o The sophistication and 
quality of Goucher's admissions and recruitment endeavors had for 
some years been ahead of the competition, "but evidence suggested that 
the admissions office was reaching the limit of what could be accom- 
plished by effort and cleverness. In the absence of significant staffing 
changes in faculty and administration, as well as other economies, the 



m 


r^T^ 


1 


^^^^^^^^^^'v 


:« 



Students reading a graph, 1980s 



College's budget would include a deficit beginning in 1980-81. The The Academic Program 
deficit would be over $ 1,000,000 per year by 1984-85, and the expend- 
able endowment would be depleted by 1986. In the words of the Aca- 
demic Planning Committee's report: 

The Committee, in reviewing the available information, accepts the valid- 
ity of the forecast of expendable endowment depletion by 1986. In fact, it 
apprehends that, if the forecast errs, it errs on the optimistic side, because it 
fails to account for a number of factors, all probably negative: the impact of 
the decreasing size on matriculation and retention rates because of student 
reaction to small size, the impact of the continuing decrease in the fraction of 
women choosing women's colleges, the impact of increasing fuel costs in the 
competition between "heating-bill" colleges and "warm-winter" colleges, 
and the impact of decreasing appreciation for the concept of liberal arts with 
passing time and changing clientele. Hence, it seems likely that, in the ab- 
sence of appreciable change, the expendable endowment could be depleted 
as early as 1984-85. 

On the basis of statements by members of the Board of Trustees and by the 
President, the date of the expendable endowment's depletion can be taken as 
the approximate termination date of College operations. 

It is the apprehension of the Committee that the College is lighting, in the 
months ahead, for its very existence, and that the moment of truth may be as 
little as four years away.'' 

The committee then went on to discuss some fundamental rules of 
strategy for survival, for example, "if faculty members talk and act as if 
continued vitality of the College is assured, then assurance of continued 
vitality will be enhanced." The committee went on to rule out certain 
options that, however attractive in the longer run, might be detrimental 
to short-term cash-flow, namely, a curricular overhaul, a switch to coedu- 
cation, or program cuts that gave the appearance of curricular shrinkage 
rather than curricular improvement. According to the report, every 
position, faculty and administrative, should be examined on its merits. 
If cuts had to occur, persons involved should be given the opportunity to 
retrain for open positions wherever possible, in consultation with de- 
partments involved. Persons who must seek new positions should re- 
ceive maximum College support in that effort. 

Since, in the committee's view, much student dissatisfaction leading 
to withdrawal apparently did not stem from the academic area, every 
effort should be made to improve student satisfaction with the College; 
to this end, the committee made suggestions for improving freshman 
advising and involving faculty more directly in matters of career devel- 
opment.'^ 

The committee further recommended continuing an aggressive 
building program, costs of which should be defrayed from specialized 
resources and not at the expense of the academic program. Building, 
including renovation, said the committee, "conveys a message of vigor," 
enhances student pride in the College, and impresses visitors favora- 
bly.''' The committee also favored conducting an aggressive investment 
program: "There seems to be little point in being cleverly leveraged for 
the late 1980s if the College perishes in 1984."''' 

Returning to the matter of principles that should shape the academic 
program, the committee advocated adherence to stated College goals, 
"with recognition that the form of the curriculum that best fulfills those 219 



goals changes with time. The value of each course depends on its aca- 
demic merit (the extent to which it serves to meet the goals) and on the 
number of students electing it. The impact of each teaching position 
depends on the overall value of the courses taught. The appropriate size 
of a department depends on the impact of the teaching positions in it. 
Therefore, if cuts become necessary, the Committee advocates that these 
be made on the basis of academic impact. Teaching positions carrying 
the least academic impact should be most vulnerable to cutting. A pro- 
cedure should be followed which minimizes academic damage, both 
qualitatively and quantitatively."'^ 

In light of the foregoing observations, the committee suggested a 
procedure for making cuts and additions in teaching positions when 
curricular changes must be made. In connection with the introduction 
of new programs, the committee outlined procedural steps for evaluat- 
ing such programs, assuming that they must meet the following require- 
ments: 

1 . [A new program] and the courses comprising it must have academ- 
ic merit [measured in terms of] the extent to which it contributes to 
fulfilling Goucher's stated purpose and the number of students elect- 
ing it 

2. Necessary space and equipment must be available or economically 
procurable 

3. [New programs] must be responsive to students' interests and to 
the perceived needs of society 

4. They must be able to be staffed and taught efficiently'^ 

On the basis of these criteria, the Academic Planning Committee 
approved the proposed changes Dean Billet described to the Executive 
Committee on June 2, 1980. 

Finally, in Appendix C of its report, the committee proposed a four- 
step procedure for determining which teaching positions were most 
eligible for cutting. These steps involved, first, a determination of course 
value, based on its academic merit and its impact as both a major and a 
service course. A formula would generate a number representing course 
value. Next, the impact of the teaching position would be determined by 
using a formula taking into account course value (step i), weekly con- 
tact hours for a given course, and the total number of contact hours 
expected of that position. Third, departmental efficiency would be de- 
termined on the basis of the weighted average of the teaching position 
impact (step 2) of each full-time faculty member in the department. 
(Reductions could be based on the principle that departments with the 
lowest efficiency value would be the most eligible for cutting.) Finally, 
after each cut was made in a given department, an attempt should be 
made to redistribute courses hypothetically to remaining faculty, to 
redistribute displaced students in deleted courses into other courses, 
and then the entire procedure should be repeated beginning with 
step i.i^ 

Understandably, some faculty members expressed grave reservations 
about the use of formulas, which, they felt, conveyed an impression of 
scientific precision not possible in matters involving very complex and 
necessarily judgmental decisions affecting professional careers. The Ac- 



ademic Planning Committee, however, noted repeatedly that the use of 
the outlined procedural steps was intended to introduce into such judg- 
mental decisions a measure of objectivity that might otherwise be given 
less weight than it deserved. 



The Academic Program 



In a letter dated May 29, 1980, Professors Hedges, Cooperman, and 
Koppelman, respectively the chairmen of Faculties I, 11, and III, and 
Professor Peirce, chairman pro tempore of an unofficial meeting of the 
faculty held on May 28, wrote to President Dorsey and Dean Billet to 
report that, at the unofficial meeting, "thirty full-time members of the 
Goucher teaching faculty unanimously subscribed to a motion calling 
for a moratorium on the actions implied by the May 20 report of the 
Committee on Academic Planning with respect to curricular changes 
and staff reduction. The group urged that no curricular decisions be 
made until or unless the Faculty accepts the report of the Committee at 
its first meeting in September 1980, and until or unless provision is 
made for the use of proper procedure for introducing new programs 
through departments, the Curriculum Committee, the Assembly, and 
the Faculty; and that no member of the staff be dismissed without formal 
consultation with his or her department and with the appropriate Col- 
lege committees." 1' 

The minutes of the trustee Executive Committee for June 2 state that 
with regard to the faculty letter requesting a moratorium, "after discus- 
sion of the problems such a delay would entail, Mr. DeVries moved that 
the College move ahead in acting on the Report of the Academic Plan- 
ning Committee because of the importance of time in developing new 
programs." The motion was seconded and carried.^" 

In a memorandum to the Faculty dated June 5, President Dorsey 
noted that "a group of faculty has requested that a moratorium be 
declared on the actions recommended by the report of the Academic 
Planning Committee. I have considered this plan carefully and am un- 
able to accept it. As the report of the APC made clear, we must move 
rapidly if new programs are to have an impact on the admission and 
retention of students. Changes designed in 1980-81 cannot be imple- 
mented until 1981—82 and will have an effect on admissions only in 
1983 at the earliest. A moratorium will delay this process for a year and 
will only protract an unpleasant and unavoidable task."'i 

Speaking to the Board of Trustees on June 14, Dean Billet, with 
advice from the Faculty's Academic Planning Committee, recom- 
mended curricular modifications, including the addition of some new 
programs and reductions in existing ones; this process would involve 
changes in faculty staffing. President Dorsey, he said, would make rec- 
ommendations concerning faculty staff changes to the Executive Com- 
mittee on June 23. 

On that day Mr. Billet reviewed for the Executive Committee the 
material he had earlier given to the Academic Planning Committee. His 
projections indicated the serious impact of declining enrollment on the 
College's financial position. After questions and discussion Mr. DeVries 
proposed the following motion: "Resolved, that in order to address 
future serious financial implications of projected enrollment patterns, 
the resources of the College shall be reallocated to develop new pro- 



Implementation of 
the Major Proposals 
of the Academic 
Planning Committee 



grams. Therefore, programmatic modification is mandated and the re- 
port of the Academic Planning Committee (May 14, 1980) and the 
report of the Vice President for Academic Affairs [Dean Billet] (June 13, 
1980) be and are accepted as modified to recommend the elimination of 
four full-time teaching positions for the academic year 1980-81, with 
other terminations to follow for the academic year 1981—82."--^ The 
motion was seconded by Mr. Pearlstone and carried unanimously. 

At the meeting of the Board of Trustees on October 11, President 
Dorsey commented on the faculty terminations that had been decided 
during the summer. The four tenured faculty members affected had been 
given one year's salary and benefits with no teaching duties assigned.-' 
The College had also provided them with secretarial and job counseling 
services as well as coverage of expenses incurred in attending one nation- 
al professional meeting. 

One of the faculty members whose position had been terminated, 
visual arts Professor Gretel Chapman, raised the question of the validity 
of the trustees' declaration that the College was, in June 1980, in a state 
of financial exigency. (Such a declaration was required if tenured faculty 
were to be terminated on grounds not involving their personal conduct, 
academic capabilities, or professional performance.) On June 13, 1981, 
the Board of Trustees unanimously approved the following resolution: 
"Resolved, that the Board of Trustees hereby votes its full approval of 
and confidence in the leadership of President Dorsey and Dean Billet 
and reasserts its determination that each faculty member be accorded 
fair and considerate treatment. And be it further resolved, that with full 
knowledge of the status of the College in June of 1980 and of all the 
events which have occurred since then, the Board hereby determines 
that its finding of financial exigency in June of 1980 was required; that 
finding is accordingly hereby reaffirmed."^"' 

Professor Chapman appealed to the American Association of Univer- 
sity Professors,'^ which sent an investigative committee to the College 
to inquire into the circumstances of her termination. The committee 
spent two days on the campus in April 1982, hearing testimony on both 
sides of the issue,-* and on June 17, 1 983, the AAUP voted to censure the 
College's administration and Board of Trustees. The principal issue was 
whether or not the College had violated Professor Chapman's academic 
freedom by terminating her position on the basis of a declaration of 
financial exigency that, according to the AAUP, failed to meet the condi- 
tions under which such action was justifiable. In essence, the question 
was whether the state of exigency was bona fide at the time the decision 
was taken to terminate tenured faculty or whether it was merely an 
anticipation oi future financial exigency, in which case other less drastic 
steps might have been taken first in the hope of averting the impending 
crisis. Speaking to the Board of Trustees on June 18, President Dorsey 
said that while the College regretted the decision of the AAUP, it felt that 
it was right for Goucher to stand by the definitions and procedures 
approved by the Faculty and the board. ■^'' 



The Academic Program 



While some of the new emphases in the curriculum came about in New Degree 
response to the need to attract and retain more students, others resulted Requirements 
from a perceived need to solidify the academic program after the loosen- 
ing of its structure in the early seventies. As a result, during the period 
from 1973 to 1984, the College Assembly approved a number of impor- 
tant changes in the requirements for Goucher's Bachelor of Arts degree. 

On December 5, 1973, the College Assembly voted to eliminate the 
requirement that every student must perform, prior to graduation, an 
integrative exercise in her major field. A problem arose from the lack of 
consistency in the way various departments implemented the rule. By 
eliminating this college-wide regulation, the Assembly left to each de- 
partment the responsibility for setting its own standards for satisfactory 
completion of the major. 

In reponse to a perceived need to provide some common body of 
knowledge to all students, the College Assembly voted on April 16, 
1975, to require all freshmen to complete a one-semester core course, 
whose content and structure would be determined by a committee rep- 
resenting each of the three faculties. The committee did its work, and on 
January 17, 1976, political science Professor Lawrence K. Munns, biol- 
ogy Professor Martin Berlinrood, and Miss Katharine ("Kathi") New- 
man, a student, reported to the Board of Trustees on the results. The 
purposes of the course, whose title was "Male/Female: Sense of a Classi- 
fication," were threefold: (i) to provide an experience in general educa- 
tion, showing that various disciplines offer different windows for view- 
ing one reality; (z) to provide freshmen with a shared intellectual 
experience; and (3) to provide faculty an opportunity to work together 
in a cross-disciplinary way in an effort to nurture intellectual growth 
and exploration and to overcome disciplinary isolation. Unfortunately, 
student reactions to the core course were not what had been hoped, 
and when student dissatisfaction reached a level that could not be 
overlooked, the Assembly voted on November 2, 1978, to discontinue 
the course. 

As the core course was phased out, a new team-taught course was 
introduced: "Arts and Ideas." This course, which the Assembly ap- 
proved on March 2, 1978, was to be an introductory offering in the 
humanities, required of all students by the end of the sophomore year in 
addition to the two-course distribution requirement in Faculty I. "Arts 
and Ideas" was designed to help students comprehend the forms and 
methods employed in literature, the visual arts, and the performing arts 
and in a general way to enable them to grasp the manner in which the 
arts participate in the history of ideas. The course would contain six 
units dealing with the formal, historical, expressive, and metaphoric 
aspects of works of art and their relation to objective reality. While the 
problems encountered by "Arts and Ideas" were less severe than those 
experienced by the core course, when it was evaluated two years after its 
introduction, the decision was made to eliminate the course. 

When major curricular changes were introduced in 1970 as a result 
of the "Report of the Committee on the Future of the College," the 
language requirement was left intact, but on April 30, 1975, the College 



Assembly voted that "all students will complete the intermediate level of 
one foreign language." This reduced the existing requirement, which 
stated that all students, except those beginning a new language at 
Goucher, must complete one course (in literature) beyond the inter- 
mediate level. Even with this weakening of the requirement, however, 
Goucher maintained a language requirement at a time when many other 
institutions abandoned it altogether. 

On April zi, 1976, the Assembly specified that beginning with stu- 
dents entering in September 1977, the number of courses required for 
graduation would be thirty- four, or 136 semester hours, including at 




Language student, 1980s 



least two January-term courses. This changed when, on March i6, The Academic Program 
1978, the Assembly voted to eliminate the January term and to sub- 
stitute for it the requirement that all students complete one four-credit- 
bearing "experience" off-campus but under the aegis of Goucher. These 
experiences could take the form of internships, independent work, for- 
eign study, or other activities of similar nature. 

The most significant change in the requisites for earning the Goucher 
degree was probably the introduction, in 1 981, of a set of distribution 
requirements that did much to overcome the rather loose curricular 
structure that had emerged from the recommendations of the Commit- 
tee on the Future of the College in 1 970. The first step leading to the new 
core curriculum, as Dean Billet called it, was the requirement, approved 
by the College Assembly on March 20, 1980, that "every candidate for 
the degree must demonstrate proficiency in English composition. This 
proficiency must be demonstrated by passing or exempting the first 
composition course in English and then by completing written work 
satisfactorily in any one of several courses in the English or other depart- 
ments."-^ Each department could designate one or more courses in 
which writing occupied an important place; students might then elect 
one of these courses and announce their intention to submit their writ- 
ing in that course in fulfillment of the English composition requirement. 
While such students would have their work in the course evaluated in 
the usual way for a grade, their writing would be given special, separate 
scrutiny and would be accepted (or not) as fulfilling the requirement in 
English composition. Of course, students might choose instead to elect 
English 105 for this purpose, but many preferred (and still prefer) to use 
a course in their major field to demonstrate their writing proficiency. 

It is noteworthy that the English writing program now makes heavy 
use of word processors, which allow students to write drafts, call them 
up on the screen, and discuss them with a trained tutor or an instructor, 
inserting corrections immediately without the necessity of retyping sen- 
tences or paragraphs requiring no change. This facility encourages stu- 
dents to print multiple drafts and to continue the editing process until 
they are satisfied with the result. It is not surprising that this economy in 
time and energy tends to produce far better writing and more rapid 
learning than was possible before the advent of the word processor. 




Ballet students, 1985 



The complete overhaul of the distribution requirement was accom- 
phshed by May 7,1981, when the College Assembly voted to replace the 
existing requirement (that all students take at least two courses in each 
faculty in which they did not major) with the following new set of 
requirements expressed in terms of goals to be achieved in various areas 
of the curriculum: 

1. Abstract Reasoning (one designated course in Mathematics, Com- 
puter Science, or Logic). Goal: to develop the student's ability to 
reason abstractly and appreciate the elegance of abstract structures. 

2. Fine and Performing Arts (one designated course in Art, Creative 
Arts, Dance, Music, or Theatre). Goal: to develop the student's sen- 
sory and critical awareness and therefore enjoyment of expressive 
form in a visual, kinesthetic and/or musical medium. 

3. History (one designated course in History or Modern Languages 
[culture-civilization courses]). Goal: To introduce the student to the 
interrelationships between changing social, economic, political, in- 
tellectual, and artistic elements in the development of a culture dur- 
ing an historical period. The culture could be that of a single country 
(Hider's Germany) or that of a larger region (Fascist Europe). 

4. Literature (one designated course in English, Modern Languages, 
or World Literature). Goal: To develop the student's critical aware- 
ness and enjoyment of language, in its uniqueness, as an expressive 
medium for art. 

5. Natural Sciences (one designated course in Biology, Chemistry, 
Physics, or Psychology). Goal: To give the student a basic under- 
standing of the methods of scientific discovery and their relationships 
to the fundamental concepts of a discipline. The [Curriculum] Com- 
mittee considers a laboratory component (possibly of only a few 
weeks' duration) essential. 

6. Philosophy (excluding Logic, see #1: Abstract Reasoning); (one 
designated course in Philosophy, Religion, or Political Science). Goal: 
To introduce the student to major writers in the philosophical and 
religious traditions in order to stimulate the student's thinking about 
the permanent human issues of goodness, truth, beauty, and the 
sacred, and how we "know" anything about such matters. 

7. Social Sciences (one designated course in Anthropology, Econom- 
ics, Education, Political Science, Psychology, or Sociology). Goal: To 
introduce the student to various approaches and methods used by 
social scientists to analyze the social, economic, and political forces 
shaping human behavior. 

8. Computer proficiency (one designated course in Computer Sci- 
ence or in another area in which the computer is extensively used in 
the given course). Goal : To give the student familiarity with the use of 
the language of the computer, an increasingly important tool both in 
business and the academy.-*^ 

The requirements in foreign language, writing proficiency, and physi- 
cal education remained unchanged. At the same meeting the College 
Assembly voted to establish a grade point average of i.oo as a require- 
ment for graduation, and on February 16, 1984, it voted to establish a 
minimum grade point average of 2.00 for courses required for satisfac- 
tory completion of the major. 



Table 12 New Majors Added to Curriculum, 1975-85 



The Academic Program 



1975-76 The first major of its kind in the Baltimore 



Pre-legal Studies 
European Studies (other 
than English) 

Historic Preservation 
Communications 
Area Studies 



Computer Science 
Women's Studies 
Management 
Special Education 
Latin American Studies 



1975-76 
1975-76 



1975-76 
1976-77 
1977-78 



1980-81 
1981-82 
1981-82 
1985-86 
1985-86 



The major involved the departments of 
Dramatic Arts, History, Music, Philso- 
phy, and Modern Languages 



This title covers four distmct majors in 
French, Germanic, Hispanic, and Russian 



Source: Goucher College Archives. 



Not surprisingly, the many changes in the degree requirements intro- 
duced during the Dorsey administration were accompanied by the intro- 
duction of a series of new majors. Most of these programs involved 
combinations of already existing courses augmented by new ones spe- 
cifically designed for the new concentrations. Table 12 summarizes 
these additions to the curriculum. 



New Major Programs 



For many years the College had allowed students to elect a combination 
major,^o that is, one in which two fields could be combined in a way 
that would permit a thematic or structural synthesis to be visible in the 
student's work. (This, at least, was the ideal, though its realization was 
not always fully achieved.) As students became more and more con- 
cerned about preparing for specific careers, however, increasing pressure 
developed to give them the opportunity to complete a double major, in 
other words, two distinct majors with no necessary link between them. 
Under such a system, a student could major in an area in which she 
planned to make a career, completing all the necessary requirements for 
that area of concentration, but she could also do the same in an area in 
which she felt a strong interest even though she foresaw no particular 
practical use to which she could put the second field. On February 20, 
1974, the College Assembly voted to establish officially a double major, 
thereby allowing a student to show on her transcript that she had two 
strings to her bow. 

The new programs instituted in the mid-seventies had been intended 
to improve enrollments and retention of students; in addition, they 
generated increased foundation support. The new courses and pro- 
grams that Dean Billet planned in 1974 and which were offered for the 
first time in 1975—76 had a gratifying response. In support of these 
efforts, the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation granted the College 
$150,000 for faculty development and additional help in the area of 
career development. On October 18, 1975, Dean Billet observed to the 
Board of Trustees that Goucher was seeking a balance between the 



Further Changes in 
the Undergraduate 
Curriculum 



liberal arts and preparation for the professions, with courses taught by a 
liberal arts faculty. Among recent programs he cited the performing arts, 
historic preservation, public affairs, computer science, pre-legal studies, 
and a revitalized program in finance and economics which had gener- 
ated a 50 percent increase in enrollments in the Economics Department. 
The $ I 50,000 Mellon grant would be used to provide special leaves for 
members of the faculty to engage in nonacademic professional experi- 
ence in their fields of interest, and to develop closer relations between 
academic advising and career counseling in order to relate liberal arts 
courses and programs to the widening occupational opportunities avail- 
able to women. 

Other grants received by the College included a National Science 
Foundation grant to support implementation of a small network of 
interactive computer terminals tied to large scale computing equipment 
at the Johns Hopkins University." Once this equipment was in place, 
efforts were made to spread the use of the computer to a large number of 
departments. Thus, in January 1978, Professors Barton L. Houseman 
and Lewis A. Walker of the Chemistry Department, who had devoted 
much time and effort to propagating the use of the computer in the 
academic area, gave computer workshops for sixteen faculty members 
from a wide range of departments.'- 

Goucher, along with five other colleges, received in 1978 a grant 
from the Carnegie Corporation to develop a Public Leadership Educa- 
tion Network (PLEN); Goucher's part in this enterprise involved the 
establishment of an internship program for students in women's col- 
leges in Maryland to work with Maryland women public officials. ^^ 

The year 1978 was a major one in terms of changes related to the 
curriculum. These included the decision by the College Assembly, on 
May 4, 1978, to modify the grading system by adding the grades A — , 
B + , B-, C-I-, C-, D + , and D- to the existing grades of A, B, C, D, and 
F, while defining them respectively as excellent, good, satisfactory, poor, 
and failing. Straight letter grades give the reader of a transcript no 
indication of whether a C represents a grade of 70, a grade of 79, or 
something in between. While less precise than numbers — which are 
often too precise for evaluating certain kinds of work — the plus and 
minus grades at least eliminate the uncertainty over whether a C student 
differs from a B student by as little as one percentage point or as many as 
nineteen points. 

A new five-year program in public health, also introduced in 1978, 
led to the degree of Master of Public Health, joindy sponsored by 
Goucher College and the Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene 
and Public Health. The College Assembly approved the program on 
November 30. 

Perhaps the most important change made in 1979 was the decision, 
approved by the College Assembly on November 29, to substitute for 
the existing arrangement, in which all full courses carried four credits, a 
new variable credit system in which the normal number of credits for a 
semester course meeting three times a week would be three. This re- 
duced the total number of hours required for the degree from 136 to 
120, increased the total number of courses needed for the degree from 
thirty-four to a minimum of thirty-five to forty (depending on the ma- 
jor), permitted a student to elect up to ten full courses per year (as 




The Academic Program 



Students in common room, 1980s 

compared with the previous maximum of eight), and reduced the cost 
per course from $507 to $405. This change was urgently needed be- 
cause, as a result of the 4-1-4 calendar adopted in the early seventies, 
Goucher's credit system was highly inflated and out of line with the 
national norm of i zo semester hours required for the Bachelor of Arts 
degree. 

In 1980 Goucher instituted a new Writing Center in an effort to 
improve students' writing skills. Trained student tutors were available in 
the center several hours a day to help students with problems of gram- 
mar and organization. (The fact that Weekly's article dealing with the 
Writing Center [September 11, 1980] spelled the word "grammatical" 
with one "m" may suggest that the center's time had indeed come.) 

In 1982 a new physical education program was developed, built 
around five goals: (i) wellness, (2) physical fitness, (3) environmental 
sensitivity/survival skills, (4) cooperation/team play/interpersonal rela- 
tions, and (5) life skills. Students would be able to choose from among 
several offerings to meet these goals. 3"' 

Finally, on May 3 , 1984, the College Assembly voted to substitute for 
unscheduled final examinations a system of scheduled examinations in 
order to relieve pressures on the Honor Code. 



While so much attention was being focused on the undergraduate cur- 
riculum, the graduate level was not neglected. In 1974 the only 
graduate program at the College was the one leading to the Master of 
Education degree. On September 9, 1 974, on President Dorsey's recom- 
mendation, the Executive Committee approved a moratorium on the 
Graduate Program in Education, which operated at a financial loss, and 
the College decided to recruit no further enrollees beginning in Septem- 
ber 1975. Three years later, on March 16, 1977, the College Assembly 
voted to approve a Master's degree program in Dance/Movement 



Graduate Programs 



The Dorsey Therapy, to be offered jointly by the Departments of Psychology and 

Administration Performing Arts; this two-year program, with stringent entrance re- 

quirements, would consist of three semesters of courses plus a one- 
semester internship and independent project. The program, beginning 
in September 1978, would accept fifteen students per year and would be 
the only offering of its kind in the Baltimore area. The Board of Trustees 
approved the proposal on June 18, 1977, and in September 1978, under 
the direction of Professor Arlynne Stark, the Master's program in 
Dance/Movement Therapy began with fourteen enrolled students.'^ 
On November 29, 1979, the College Assembly voted to approve a 
Master of Arts Program in Art Therapy, paralleling the existing program 
in Dance/Movement Therapy, and the State Board for Higher Educa- 
tion's Program Committee endorsed the new program on March 3, 
1980. Directed by Professor Christine W. Wang, the program began on 
schedule in September 1980, but on December 17, 1984, the Executive 
Committee voted to suspend it at the end of the 1985—86 academic year, 
when currently enrolled students would have completed their course of 
study. The program had had a consistently small enrollment and had 
operated at a deficit since its inception. The demand for the degree was 
not great, and there was a competing program at George Washington 
University. Furthermore, the offering did not have the kind of support 
enjoyed by the program in Dance/Movement Therapy. 



Programs for Part- The College appointed Professor of French Wolfgang E. Thormann act- 

Time, Special, and ing director of the Summer Session for 1974. Forty-nine courses. 

Summer Students carrying undergraduate credit were to be offered in two sessions, all 

taught by Goucher faculty. In fact, 301 students registered in twenty- 
seven courses during the summer session, and the College cleared 
$2,000.^* The second year of the summer school, arranged by Dean 
Billet, was also a success and showed growth in enrollment. 

The College Assembly approved, on May 5, 1975, a new kind of 
program in which the College would award a second baccalaureate 
degree to a student who held a Bachelor's degree from an accredited 
institution other than Goucher, provided that (i) the student met all 
College requirements, (2) the courses accepted for the degree from the 
first institution were appropriate to the Goucher degree in both content 
and quality, (3) the student met the requirements for the major as de- 
fined by the department of the major and was recommended for gradua- 
tion by the major department, and (4) the student completed at 
Goucher a minimum of eight courses (thirty-two semester hours) exclu- 
sive of January term offerings unless a January course was required as 
part of the major. 

For the fall of 1977 Fontaine Belford, director of the Goucher Center 
for Educational Resources, prepared with her staff a wide range of 
offerings for the fall. The courses, which were open to all adults and held 
largely on the Goucher campus — days, nights, and weekends — fell into 
ten categories: Continuum, designed to help adults gear up for college 
work; five Goucher Seminars covering topics of current interest; Forum, 
offering courses in Christian-Jewish relations; Goucher II, offering 
many college-level liberal arts courses; a Business Practicum and a Vol- 
z^o unteer Practicum.''' 



On February 17, 1979, the center reported a first semester enroll- The Academic Progra 
ment of 505 registrants (as compared with 408 the year before), and the 
Women's Management Development Program, operating under the 
center and designed to prepare women for managerial positions, had 
finished the training period for the twenty-four women involved; they 
would begin internships in a week.^** The center was also at work with 
the State Department of Education on a program for gifted and talented 
high-school students in the arts. Four groups of two hundred teenagers 
would be on campus for two-week periods during the summer of 
1979.^' In October the Goucher Center reported an enrollment of 748 
participants — the largest number to date.'*" 

In September 1980 the new Goucher II program for older women 
wishing to begin or return to college made a good start. After two years 
of special classes, these women would have earned twenty-seven credits 
and would be eligible for sophomore or junior standing, depending on 
prior college work. The program, which had hoped to open with twenty 
students, actually began with forty."*' 

In October 1984 the Goucher Center for Continuing Studies (the 
new name of the Goucher Center for Educational Resources) published 
its first newsletter, in which it reported that the fall semester had begun 
with a strong class in the Post-Baccalaureate Premedical Program and an 
equally strong Goucher II class. '•^ 

Given the range of changes in the academic program at all levels 
during the first twelve years of the Dorsey administration, it is safe to 
suppose that there will be many more — though they must await the 
report of the next historian of the College. AH the same, while future 
curricular innovations are unpredictable, one can at least indulge in the 
instructive comparison of the present with the past. We have already 
encountered examples of history repeating itself in various aspects of 
Goucher's evolution, and the curriculum is no exception. Despite the 
major curricular restructuring that took place in 1934, 1958, 1970, and 
the early 1980s, the end product in 1985 bears an almost uncanny 
resemblance, mutatis mutandis, to the academic program with which 
the College opened in 1888. This is not to say that Dean Van Meter 
would have encountered no surprises had he been able to foresee the 
contents of the 1985 Goucher catalog; biocomputing would have been 
only one of a number of programs of study entirely unfamiliar to him. 
But beneath such recent innovations, an analysis of the fundamental 
areas of study and the attendant mechanisms designed to insure their 
orderly assimilation would reveal far less change than one might expect 
in the course of almost one hundred years. For example, the fact that 
there are almost twice as many departments of instruction in 1985 as 
there were in 1888 can be explained in part by the fact that many of the 
early departments were really composed of clusters of related subjects, 
such as natural sciences, which included biology, chemistry, and phys- 
ics. This was a normal administrative procedure given the number of 
faculty and the size of the student body at that time. But when we look 
beneath the umbrella designations of the nineteenth-century depart- 
ments, we find that the only subject taught at the College when it opened 
that is not still part of the curriculum today is ancient languages, which, 
as we have seen, disappeared from the Goucher curriculum in 1976 
(though students are still afforded the opportunity to pursue studies in 2- 



classics through the program of interinstitutional cooperation with 
neighboring colleges and universities). What is perhaps more surprising 
is that the only major programs in the current catalogue that cannot be 
traced back directly to one or more progenitors in the curriculum of 
1888 are education (which became a major in 1917) and management 
(which became a major in 1981). 

The structural framework designed to provide an orderly and educa- 
tionally effective presentation of the fundamental disciplines has also 
come full circle in 1985. Degree requirements have been reduced from a 
high of 136 semester hours for graduation to 120, the number required 
in 1888. Variable credit, the two-semester calendar with a norma! load 
of five courses per semester, and a strong set of degree requirements — all 
characteristics of the 1888 curriculum — have been reintroduced into 
the College's academic program. While this return to the basic structure 
of 1888 may suggest that "the more it changes, the more it's the same 
thing," it may also indicate that despite much experimentation over the 
years, in the long run Goucher maintains an unswerving — though 
largely unconscious — allegiance to its motto: "Prove all things, hold 
fast that which is good.""*' 



TWENTY 



The End 

of the First 

Hundred Years 

(1^80 — ic/8^) 



T 

M hrou 



hroughout 1980 and 1981 Mrs. The Campaign for 
Janet Jeffrey Harris, '30, who had recently completed her term as Women of Promise 
chairman of the Board and was now general chairman of the $14,000,000 
capital campaign, reported to the Board of Trustees on progress 
achieved. By February 9, 1980, over $z million had been pledged, and 
Goucher's capital grant request for $i,Z50,ooo had been introduced in 
the General Assembly; by June 14 the figure had reached $4,770,300 
from ninety-two sources; by October 1 1 the total was $7,600,000. At 
that point corporations had pledged $700,000 (compared with 
$435,000 the year before), and Mr. Leslie B. Disharoon, vice chairman 
of the Board of Trustees, expressed the optimistic view that corporate 
gifts would double before the end of the campaign. 

Pledges passed $9 million on February 7, 1981, $11.5 million on 
June 13, and $13 million on October 10. On November 9 Patricia 
Purcell, vice president for development, informed the Executive Com- 
mittee that a Capital-by-Phone campaign had been underway for five 
weeks; trained students had been making evening calls to alumnae not 
previously contacted. So far, $26 1,000 had been pledged by 892 of these 
alumnae, of which approximately 20 percent had never given to the 
College before. 

Finally, on January 9, 1982, Mrs. Harris was able to inform the 
Board that the campaign had exceeded its goal and stood at 
$14,245,087 with still more to come, since the campaign would not 
close until the end of February. The successful outcome would be held in 
confidence until then.i 



The successful completion of the campaign for Women of Promise came 
at an opportune time, since the number of young women graduating 
from high school was on the wane. Indeed, that perennial weed in 
Goucher's garden of troubles, diminished enrollments, continued to 
blossom in the eighties and will probably not decay until about 1996. 
Demographic in origin, the falling enrollment pattern affects all institu- 
tions of higher education, and a reversal of the trend will not occur until 
more students graduate from high school in the first decade of the next 
century. We saw in chapter 19 Dean Billet's grim projections in 1980 
that indicated the need to develop a new, more attractive curriculum was 
indeed urgent. President Dorsey pointed out to the Executive Commit- 
tee on October 19, 1981, that because the College had missed its enroll- 
ment targets for two years in a row, the freshmen and sophomore classes 
were small. Since the small classes would remain small until they gradu- 
ated, the College found itself in a critical situation for the current and 
immediately following years. 

Dr. Dorsey 's assessment was confirmed one year later when, al- 
though the number of entering freshmen rose from 215 in September 
1981 to 253 in September 1982, there were eight fewer entering transfer 
students. This, combined with the graduation of a large senior class, 
caused the total FTE enrollment in the College to decline to 919, down 
from 946 the year before. - 

The September FTE enrollment fell even further — to 901 — in 1983. 
Although 278 new freshmen and transfer students entered in 1983 
(compared with 287 in 1982), the reason for the drop was an increase in 
students who, though expected, failed to enroll in September, a higher 
attrition rate for returning sophomores, and a rise in the number of 
students dropped from the College for academic reasons.^ 

A more serious enrollment decline occurred in 1984, when 181 fresh- 
men entered the College, as compared with 247 in the fall of 1983. Both 
applications and acceptances were substantially behind corresponding 
figures for several preceding years, an experience shared by many other 
medium-sized women's colleges. As Dr. Dorsey noted, this development 
was "unfortunate, but not unforeseen." It represented, in fact, a trend 
continued in 1985 and likely to continue for the next ten years. 



Student Financial Aid One effect of economic policies during the administration of President 
Ronald Reagan has been a decline in federal subsidies to colleges and 
universities, particularly in financial aid to students. In its Report to the 
Governor's Commission on Excellence in Higher Education (March 7, 
1986), the Maryland Independent College and University Association 
(MICUA), representing twenty-four independent colleges and univer- 
sities (including Goucher) and thirteen state-aided institutions, listed 
several "barriers to sustaining and enhancing excellence." One of the 
"most significant barriers" cited was "the continuing erosion of student 

z)4 financial aid, produced by diminishing federal dollars and by static 



Table 13 


Schedu 


ie of State and Federal Support, 1982-85 




End of the First One 






1982-83 


1983-84 


1984-85 


Hundred Years 


Pell 

SEOG 

National Direct Student Loan 

College Work Study 

Federal grants 


$ 163,569 
75,806 
101,001 
143,945 
12,928 


$ 158,852 
75,879 
99,239 
153,469 
75,879 


$ 154,119 
79,802 
77,767 
153,469 
79,802 




Total Federal 




497,247 


533,186 


473,867 




State Scholarships 
State Subsidy 




99,290 
501,588 


128,852 
538,866 


159,305 
537,055 




Total State 




600,878 


667,718 


696,360 




Grand Total 




1,098,125 


1,200,904 


1,170,027 





Source: Minutes of the College Assembly, April 23, 1985. 



funding by the State for scholarships." The Report noted that over the 
period 1982-1985, 

the share of student aid resources at independent colleges and universities 
from Federal sources has dropped from approximately 62. percent to 45 
percent, and the share of student aid resources at independent colleges and 
universities from State sources has remained static at about 4 percent. 

Over the same period, however, the share of student aid contributed by 
the colleges and universities and from private sources has increased substan- 
tially, from 34% to 51%. Nevertheless, the relatively high tuitions of the 
independent institutions — coupled with the declining availability of State/ 
Federal aid — has already affected their financial accessibility for many stu- 
dents.'' 

At Goucher, because of an increase in federal grants in 1983—84 over 
the previous and following years and a rise in state scholarships and the 
state subsidy, the total of federal and state support from 1982 to 1985 
has remained relatively stable, as shown in table 13. 



When President Dorsey reported to the Executive Committee on Octo- 
ber 19, 198 1, that she had recently spent two days with the American 
Council on Education and could only conclude that "the economic 
outlook for educational institutions for the immediate future is not 
reassuring," it became clear that the College should make a concerted 
effort to plan for the future. A group of trustees and administrators met 
in the fall of 1982 to consider the issues facing Goucher in the eighties 
and to determine how to maintain the momentum gained through the 
successful capital campaign. Subsequently, several task forces were ap- 
pointed to study particular areas of concern. ^ 

Dr. Jacqueline Mattfeld, '48, chairman of the Task Force on Academic 
Programs, reported that her group recommended designating a number 
of academic programs for special development because of their high 
prestige and/or competitive advantage. Goucher, she said, could be 
competitive in biology, chemistry, mathematics, and computer science. 

Mr. George L. Bunting, Jr., chairman of the Social/Athletic Task 
Force, suggested that top priority be given to creating a comfortable 



The Strategic Plan 



social space for informal student gatherings, with food available at all 
times. Second priority would be to increase physical education space, 
but with a new physical education director and a new program just 
installed, it was too soon to define precise needs. 

Mr. Edmund F. Haile, chairman of the Buildings and Grounds Com- 
mittee, discussed the importance of improving another kind of space, 
the residence facilities, then twenty-five years old. He considered the 
estimated cost of $1.25 million reflected in the capital campaign a low 
figure, but he noted that the renovation could be carried out in stages. 

Mr. J. Richard Thomas, chairman of the Admissions Task Force, said 
that the College now needed to develop new markets, especially in the 
South and Southeast. Ms. Patricia Goldman, '64, speaking for the Pro- 
graming Task Force, extended Mr. Thomas's suggestion by recommend- 
ing the developmemt of increased national recognition through profes- 
sional marketing to support both recruitment and fund-raising. 

President Dorsey pointed out that these five proposals were all based 
on three assumptions, namely, that Goucher would not develop large 
alternative degree programs, reduce costs below those of competitors to 
increase market share, or become coeducational. The Board then ap- 
proved the three assumptions and the five task force proposals. 

The Board met again on November 30 and accepted a schedule for 
implementing the strategic plan. First, it authorized an expenditure of 
$100,000 in 1983-84 for academic program development. Then it 
authorized an expenditure of $30,000 for the remainder of 1982-83 
and $75,000 in 1983-84 to obtain outside professional assistance in 
making the College more attractive to prospective students. For the 
improvement of physical facilities, the Board authorized the following 
expenditures in the summer of 1 983, the first three of which were part of 
a request for state capital funding: library renovation, $487,000; com- 
pletion of the Hoffberger Science Building, $325,000; social space, 
$1,483,000, a priority item; and for continuing maintenance work on 
the campus in general, $120,000. Several other items were temporarily 
deferred.^ 



r^8o Strike In April 1980 Local 1231, representing Goucher's service and mainte- 

nance personnel, called a strike involving issues of compensation and a 
prescription drug plan. The strike enlisted the support of some students 
and faculty, who joined the workers in picketing the entrances to the 
campus.^ The College had been negotiating with the union since De- 
cember 1979, and Vice President Richard R. Palmer outlined the Col- 
lege's final offer in a letter dated April 23, 1980. In a second letter dated 
April 25, Mr. Palmer notified the faculty, staff, and students that the 
College considered the strike illegal because Laborers' Union 1 23 i had 
failed to notifiy the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service of its 
plans thirty days prior to the actual strike. The College had filed an 
unfair labor practice charge with the National Labor Relations Board, 
which was investigating. To meet the union's salary demands would cost 
the College a total of $ 1 09,000. In response to this situation, the Faculty 
voted to constitute an advisory committee, a facilitating group whose 
responsibilities were still to be defined, to help deal with problems 
involved in the strike. 



Dr. Dorsey told the Faculty on May 8 that the College was waiting to 
hear from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.^ The Adviso- 
ry Committee created by the Faculty a week earlier reported that only 
the National Labor Relations Board could rule officially on the legality 
or illegality of the strike, which was still an unresolved question. If the 
strike was pronounced to be legal, the strikers would retain their status 
as employees, but they could be replaced by bona fide permanent em- 
ployees. Striking employees would not be entitled to reinstatement in 
that case; they would, however, be entitled to be recalled when openings 
occurred, if their representative so requested unconditionally. 

President Dorsey noted that, to date, the positions of two telephone 
operators, one custodian, one post office employee, one carpenter, and 
one groundsman had been filled by replacements. The College was 
willing to put the replaced employees on a preferential hiring list and 
had resorted to permanent replacements only because no temporary 
replacements could be found. 



End of the First One 
Hundred Years 




Goucher College, 1985 



By June 14 the union employees were back at work, though no agree- 
ment had been reached. The two sides were still meeting with a federal 
mediator. The College had sent a letter to union employees on June 6 
stating that Goucher's last offer would be put into effect as of May 31. 
The last offer included a wage increase of 30 cents an hour, back pay 
based on 50 percent of 30 cents an hour from January i, and a guarantee 
that employees who had been replaced would be put on a preferred 
hiring list; they would be offered positions for which they were qualified, 
without loss of seniority or benefits, as soon as those positions became 
available.' The strike was finally settled and a new contract signed in 
July 1980.10 



138 



Much of the renovation and construction envisaged by the College's 
strategic plan was made possible or greatly facilitated by a series of 
generous gifts that came to the College in the period 1980-85; for that 
reason, the two subjects are here treated together. 

One of the first priorities in the late seventies in the area of campus 
improvements was the overdue renovation of both the Hoffberger Sci- 
ence Building and Van Meter Hall. On June 2.5, 1979, the Executive 
Committee appointed the firm of Richter Cornbrooks Matthai Hop- 
kins, Inc., as architect for both sets of renovations, and on September 10 
Mr. Haile, chairman of the trustee Buildings and Grounds Committee, 
presented to the Executive Committee architectural drawings for the 
proposed additions. Estimated costs were $1.5 million for construction 
and approximately $1 million for renovations in Hoffberger. Mr. Haile 
noted that, given a projected inflation factor of 1 3 percent per year in 
construction costs, any delay would add to the price. Goucher had 
applied to the General Assembly for matching funds, which were avail- 
able for renovation expenses. Informing the full Board of Trustees about 
these plans on September 29, Mr. Haile noted that the total time in- 
volved would be eighteen months and the total projected cost about 
$4,200,000. 

On August II, 1980, the Executive Committee accepted the recom- 
mendation of the Finance Committee that the addition to the 
Hoffberger building begin as soon as possible, and on October 1 1 the 
contract for the new wing was awarded for a little less than $2 million. 
The groundbreaking ceremonies took place on September 12, 1981. A 
year later, on October 20, the new Hoffberger wing, named for Gairdner 
B. Moment, professor emeritus of biological sciences (1932-79), was 
dedicated. 

Two other pieces of good news soon followed: the Alumnae Fund 
contributed $607,000 to the College in 1980-8 1 , the largest annual gift 
in the history of the College; and a new lectureship, recently endowed by 
Jane and Robert Meyerhoff, brought John Kenneth Galbraith to the 
campus in March 1982 as the first speaker." 

Mr. Haile reported to the Board of Trustees on June 12, 1982, that 
the extensive work on the Hoffberger Science Building was almost fin- 
ished and that Van Meter Hall had been completely vacated so that 
major renovations could begin. He expected that the faculty members 
would be able to move back into their offices by mid-August. (His 



prediction proved to be correct, though what could be seen of Van Meter End of the First One 

Hall from the outside on August i raised a number of skeptical eye- Hundred Years 

brows on the faces of denizens of the building.) 

Other items of construction and renovation were made possible by 
gifts and bequests received in late 1982. The College received a gift of $ i 
million from the Jack H. Pearlstone, Jr., Charitable Trust for a new 
student center on campus. Mr. Pearlstone, a trustee until his death in 
1982, had been very interested in student life on campus and was much 
involved in plans for its enhancement. The gift in his memory made 
possible the student center whose absence had long been one of the real 
weaknesses in campus social life. The Executive Committee voted to 
create the Jack Pearlstone Student Center with the intention of commit- 
ting such additional funds to the project as would be necessary "to 
achieve the centralization of the post office, bookstore, and snack bar 
functions at the same location."'^ 

Then, also in late 1982, Cora Owlett Latzer, '15 bequeathed to 
Goucher $25,000 for refurbishment or extension of the student Snack 
Bar, which she and her husband had earlier given to the College. '^ Later, 
when the Snack Bar was moved to the new Pearlstone Student Center, 
the space in the College Center it previously occupied was converted 
into the Latzer Room, a multi-purpose area that could be used as a 
dining room, reception room, or meeting room for groups of various 
sizes — a very welcome addition that took some of the strain off the 
heavily over-booked Alumnae House. 

Another enhancement of the campus scene, the renovated Rosenberg 
Gallery, located in the lobby of Kraushaar Auditorium and named for 
Ruth Blaustein Rosenberg, '21, was dedicated in November 1982. 

In early 1983 the Maryland State Legislature passed a Goucher bond 
bill. The state grant of $1,003,500, when matched, would be used to 
complete renovations in Hoffberger, undertake renovations in the li- 
brary for audio-visual and communications facilities, and build an addi- 
tional dance studio with supporting offices. '"• 

A large and enthusiastic group attended the dedication of the Jack 
Pearlstone Student Center on April 12, 1984, and President Dorsey 
commented to the Board of Trustees on October 20 that the students 
were very pleased with the center and with the renovations in Stimson 
Hall. The College had undertaken a much-needed refurbishing of Stim- 
son Hall during the summer of 1984, with a number of other projects. 
By September the work in Stimson Hall was nearly complete, the last 
laboratory to be renovated in Hoffberger was finished, a new language 
laboratory with state-of-the-art equipment was in operation in Van 
Meter Hall, and changes were underway in the arrangement of offices in 
the College Center as a result of the removal of various departments to the 
Pearlstone Student Center. The next phase of renovations would include 
the library, additional work in Hoffberger, and the dance studio.'^ 

When the Board of Trustees met for the first time in the new Latzer 
Room on October 20, 1984, Mr. Haile reported that the Pearlstone 
Center had been completed at a cost of $1,781,000. In the College 
Center, the Printing Office (the former Post Office), the Latzer Room (the 
former Snack Bar), and the Registrar's Office (the former Commuting 
Students' Lounge) had all been finished during the summer, and in the 239 



The Dorsey summer of 1985 the College would undertake the refurbishment of 

Administration Heubeck Hall, the renovation of part of the library, and the reconstruc- 

tion of the patio area behind the Pearlstone Student Center.'^ 

For many years the College had regularly received annual contribu- 
tions from the Summerfield Baldwin Foundation. (Mr. Baldwin, one of 
the College's founders, had been an early chairman of the Board of 
Trustees.) When Baldwin House in Mary Fisher Hall was taken over by 
the Post Office and Bookstore, the College decided to continue the 
Baldwin name by using it for the refurbished portion of the library that 
would house the College archives. Subsequently, the Baldwin Founda- 
tion gave the College $25,000 to restore the patio area of the Pearlstone 
Center, which was completed in the second semester of 1984 and, by 
stipulation of the Foundation, named in honor of Mr. Leslie Disharoon, 
retiring chairman of the Board of Trustees. Meanwhile, once the new 
dance studio was ready, the former faculty lounge in Van Meter Hall, 
then used by the dance program, would become a communications 
center, and space in the library would be used for an information and 
technology center. 

The College announced in May 1985 that Alonzo G. and Virginia G. 
Decker had given Goucher a Si million gift to fund both an endowed 
faculty chair and the Alonzo G. and Virginia G. Decker Center for 
Information Technology, to be housed in the Julia Rogers Library. Reno- 
vations for the center were scheduled for completion by summer 1986. 
There could be no better way to conclude this section on gifts and 
construction in the mid-eighties than with the news the Executive Com- 
mittee heard on August 2.6, 1985: the Alumnae Fund had closed the 
1984-85 year with gifts totaling $1,131,593, with 49.88 percent of 
the alumnae participating — the largest Alumnae Fund contribution 
and the largest alumnae participation in the history of the College. 



Sale of the Twenty-six When, on March 21, 1980, Mr. Haile presented four proposals for 
Acres on Fairmount development of the twenty-six-acre tract on Fairmount Avenue which 
Avenue the College had been trying to sell for twenty years, the Executive Com- 

mittee voted to pursue the proposal of Ralph DeChiaro Enterprises, Inc. 
On January 9, 1982, after another two years of negotiations, the Board 
of Trustees learned that the sale of the Towson Plaza property to Mr. 
DeChiaro had been completed, and that the sale of the twenty-six acres 
on Fairmount Avenue — not to Mr. DeChiaro but to Mr. Larry Rachuba 
in partnership with McCormick Properties — was to be signed on Janu- 
ary 22. Finally, on April 12, "amid rejoicing and acclamation," Mr. 
Russell R. Reno, Jr., College counsel, announced to the Executive Com- 
mittee that the College had at last completed the sale of 26.1 acres of 
land on Fairmount Avenue on March 31, 1982, for $3 million. 

One useful side effect of the sale of the Fairmount Avenue tract was 
the addition of a new exit road from the College. Dulaney Valley Road 
had been widened yet again to handle the increased traffic that would be 
occasioned by the development of the former Goucher property, and the 
greater width made a left turn exit from the College's main entrance on 
to Dulaney Valley Road a hazardous undertaking. In exchange for the 
Goucher land used for widening the road, Mr. Rachuba agreed to build, 
240 at his expense, a connector road that would permit a departure from the 



campus through his newly acquired property to a traffic light on Fair- End of the First One 

mount Avenue, thereby avoiding the necessity of turning left on Dulaney Hundred Years 

Valley Road itself. 



In March 1983 Vassily Aksyonov, one of the most celebrated Soviet Faculty and 
writers in exile, accepted appointment as the Meyerhoff Visiting Pro- Administrative Gains 
fessor in Russian and English for 1983-84. This was a major coup for and Losses 
the College since Mr. Aksyonov had declined similar invitations from a 
number of distinguished universities and would be at Goucher when 
several of his books first appeared in America in English translation.'^ 
Good news was repeated a year later when Visiting Professor Aksyonov 
agreed to extend his stay on campus through 1984—85, thanks to an- 
other gift from Jane and Robert Meyerhoff. 

The campus was shocked and saddened by the death on August z8, 
1984, after an extended illness, of the College's dean and vice president. 
Dr. James Billet. Speaking to the Board of Trustees on October 20 about 
Dr. Billet's decade (1974-84) at Goucher, President Dorsey cited his 
energy, imagination, and understanding of the academic world. "He 
was, most importantly, a thinker and a leader." He had refocused the 
Goucher academic program, reshaped the faculty, and restructured the 
College's academic support systems, and his vision of what Goucher 
should and could be was now largely in place. '^ 

President Dorsey announced to the Executive Committee on Septem- 
ber 10 that Dr. Martin Berlinrood, who had moved from his position as 
registrar to that of acting dean during the latter part of Dean Billet's 
illness, would continue in that role and that a search committee to select 
a new dean would begin its work shortly. The following April President 
Dorsey appointed Dr. Carol S. Pearson as Goucher's new dean and vice 
president. 

On March 23, 1985, Dr. Dorsey reported sadly to the Board of 
Trustees the recent deaths of two outstanding members of the faculty, 
Brownlee Sands Corrin (professor of communications, earlier professor 
of political science, 1952-85), and Mary Taylor Hesky (lecturer in 
English, 1963—82). 



in the early eighties students seemed to be anticipating the coming Student Life 
centennial year in 1985. As early as 1980 Trustee Ann Greif, reporting 
to the Executive Committee on behalf of the Student Life Committee, 
commented on a new interest among the undergraduates in old tradi- 
tions at Goucher College. •'^ This interest took concrete form on April 25 
when, at the request of the student members of House Council, Presi- 
dent Dorsey cancelled classes beginning at noon to allow the entire 
campus to participate in a program called Get into Goucher. The pur- 
pose of the event was to celebrate the College and generate enthusiasm 
for it, while teaching members of the community something about 
Goucher's past. As the chapel bells pealed at noon on the first GIG Day 
(as it came to be called), students, faculty, and administrators swarmed 
into Kraushaar Auditorium, where five alumnae from five different dec- 
ades spoke of their years at Goucher. The entire College community was 
then invited to a picnic on the president's lawn, followed by singing. 



The Dorsey games, movies, and a campus-wide party. The planners of the event 

Administration hoped that GIG Day would become a new annual tradition — which, 

indeed, it has. 



From Promise to The academic year 1984-85 provided the College an opportunity to 

Achievement: The commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of its founding in 1885. 

Celebration of the The centennial year was marked by so many events that it is appropriate 

Gaucher Centennial to conclude this history from July i, 1930 to June 30, 1985 — a period 

that began in the early years of the depression and has included so many 

reversals as well as triumphs — with an account of the festivities that 

enlivened the last of these fifty-five years. 



From the Planning Planning for the centennial celebration began in 1982, when Martha 

Stage through Arnold Nichols, '38, dean emeritus of students, agreed to serve as gener- 

September 1984 al chairman of the committee to plan the centennial.^" 

Like most academic years, 1984-85 began with a college-wide 
picnic — but this was the first such picnic that saw the president rise 
majestically above the campus with the aid qf a hot-air balloon. The 
occasion was, in fact, sufficiently extraordinary to inspire James H. 
Bready of the Baltimore Evening Sun to devote the first paragraphs of an 
article on Goucher to the following account of the event: 

Womanhood was having a high on the Goucher campus Saturday [Sep- 
tember 8, 1984]. To start off its new academic year — its full looth year — the 
college had decreed a Centennial Picnic. To impart a touch of the essential 
Goucherian Excelsior! the college had scheduled its first-ever balloon ascen- 
sions. There on the lawn behind Mary Fisher Hall was Maryland's 350th 
anniversary gas bag, its trailing ropes lashed to several immobilized loyalist 
automobiles. There about the gondola, once the winds had finally died, 
stood a majority of the i,Z50-member Goucher community, heads craned 
back and chanting, in the manner of Memorial Stadium: "Rho-da! Rho-da! 
Rhohhh-da!" There, gripping the sides of the passenger basket, knuckles 
gleaming whitely, up, up, several hundred feet up, went the smiling president 
of Towson's greatest institution for the ever-higher education of womankind. 

Then Rhoda M. Dorsey, older and wiser by her first decade in office and 
her first flight with no cabin came down again. Other people, drawn by lot, 
followed. And then it was Sunday, and Monday, and classes, and Goucher 
had come back down to earth. 

... At Saturday's picnic, onlookers cheered as the balloon bore Rhoda 
Dorsey aloft but a flippant voice said, "Cut the ropes. "^' 

At the picnic ABC-TV filmed Goucher students sending greetings to 
the nation, a spot broadcast on ABC's "Good Morning America" pro- 
gram on October 22, 1984.^^ 

Goucher's president may have returned to earth, but neither she nor 
the rest of the community lost the uplifting centennial spirit. The next 
event, also a normal feature of the opening of an academic year but this 
time with a difference, was the convocation held on September 12 in 
Kraushaar Auditorium. Present for the occasion, amid blue and gold 
banners and balloons and a choir of fifteen trombones, were not only 
President Dorsey, but both of Goucher's living former presidents. Otto 
242 F. Kraushaar and Marvin B. Perry, Jr., together with Maryland Gover- 



nor Harry R. Hughes, whose mother was a Goucher alumna of the class End of the First One 

of 1 9 1 5 . Hundred Years 



The academic year began on the day of the fall convocation and until The Four Centennial 
March — it was on March 12, 1885, that the founding committee de- Symposia 
clared its work completed — the centennial program was appropriately 
and exclusively academic: it took the form of four symposia. 

The first symposium, whose topic was conflict resolution in interna- 
tional affairs, was led by George Ball, former undersecretary of state and 
United States ambassador to the United Nations, who spent October 
15—17 at Goucher as speaker-in-residence. 

The second symposium, on style in the arts, ran from November i z— 
14 and featured Ada Louise Huxtable, former architecture critic of the 
New York Times, Violette Verdy, internationally acclaimed former bal- 
lerina and current teaching associate at the New York City Ballet, and 
Luise Vosgerchian, professor of music at Harvard University. The pro- 
gram included a panel discussion on criticism in the arts, a public lecture 
by Ada Louise Huxtable: "The Search for a Skyscraper Style," and a 
panel discussion on style in the arts of the twentieth century. Following 
the symposium, on November 16 and 19, the Dance, Music, and The- 
atre Departments presented a production of "L'Histoire d'un Soldat" by 
Igor Stravinsky. 

The third symposium, devoted to women writers, was divided into 
two parts. Part one took place on March 5—7 and included a panel 
discussion with short story writer Grace Paley, literary critic Hortense 
Spillers, and poet June Jordan, as well as a public lecture by Maya 
Angelou, author, television producer, and singer. Part two brought to 
the campus award-winning novelist, short story writer, and poet Joyce 
Carol Oates for a four-day visit on March 18-21. 

The fourth and last symposium focused on the theme of women in 
science and featured Vera Kistiakowsky, professor of physics and cele- 
brated researcher in high energy particle physics at the Massachusetts 
Institute of Technology. Professor Kistiakowsky was speaker-in- 
residence for three days on April 16-18. 



In April 1985 the trustees decided to offer (in 1985 only) two centennial The Momentum 
scholarships, the winners to pay, during each of their four years in Builds: February- 
college, the princely sum that constituted Goucher's tuition when the April 198^ 
College opened in 1888: one hundred dollars. In addition, twenty-eight 
semi-finalists were awarded one-year grants of $2,500.^^ 

During the height of Louis Comfort Tiffany's career as an artist in 
stained glass, the College commissioned from his studio a 10' x 15' 
tryptich window to stand on the western wall of Goucher Hall. The 
tryptich, which cost $3,000 (of which $1,000 was a gift of the classes of 
1892 through 1903), honored Mary Cecelia Fisher Goucher (1850- 
1902). Principal Tiffany studio designer Frederick Wilson used the tra- 
ditional allegorical figures of Faith, Hope, and Charity to represent the 
character of Mrs. Goucher. Dedicated with great ceremony in 1904, the 
Tiffany windows adorned old Goucher Hall for forty-five years, but 
when the College moved to Towson they were dismantled and packed 



The Dorsey away in open crates. As the centennial approached, President Dorsey felt 

Administration that it was both exciting and essential to restore the windows and install 

them on the Towson campus as a reminder of the central role of the 
Goucher family in the early years. With the help of the Art Department 
and the Development Office the task was accomplished, and the 
Goucher Tiffany windows were restored to their original splendor and 
installed as a permanent exhibit in the Rosenberg Gallery in time to be 
unveiled in a ceremony on March 3 which was attended by a large and 
enthusiastic audience including descendants of President and Mrs. 
Goucher.^-* 

Later the same day a flock of buses took the majority of those who 
had been present for the Tiffany window unveiling downtown for two 
more events: a walking tour of some of the old campus buildings, then a 
commemorative service in Lovely Lane Church followed by an open 
house and reception. 

Less than a week later, on March 9, nearly five hundred participants 
departed at high speed from the Goucher campus to undertake an eight- 
mile run to the original campus at St. Paul and Z4th Streets in Baltimore. 
In the words of centennial Chairman Martha Nichols, "physical educa- 
tion has always been an integral part of the curriculum at Goucher. 
Besides demonstrating the link between the two sites in the school's 
history, this was one of the things that many alumnae and students said 
they wanted as part of the celebration."-'' According to Weekly on 
March 29, 1985, almost all the runners finished, and everyone had a 
good time. Four faculty members as well as many students participated 
in the race, and an alumna from New York was the second finisher. 

On March 21 Goucher students — with some assistance from their 
elders — recreated the formal teas that were once a part of campus life. In 
the modern setting of the Pearlstone Cafe, elegantly gowned and white- 
gloved young ladies poured tea with almost perfectly steady hands, 
quite as though they had been doing so for years. Nearby, several 
Goucher faculty members clad in magnificent Victorian costumes 
added further touches of nostalgia to Goucher's first and only centen- 
nial tea. 

Needless to say, the celebrating of the centennial did not take place 
only on the Goucher campus. Between October 1984 and April 1985 
regional events occurred in Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Dallas, 
various sites in Florida, Harrisburg, New York City, Washington, and 
Boston. "We've tried to tailor the activities to the particular interests, 
needs and preferences of the environment," said Martha Nichols. "In 
Los Angeles, friends and alumnae of the school will take a cruise on John 
Wayne's yacht with a Dixieland band and a crab cake buffet. In Chicago, 
there will be a symposium with outstanding television personalities. 
And in Dallas, there will be a fund-raising dinner to start a scholarship 
in honor of Judge Sarah T. Hughes, the Goucher alumna who swore in 
Lyndon Johnson as president."-^ 

Ail these varied activities, in Towson, Baltimore, and around the 
country, were part of the crescendo leading to the climax: the Gala Cen- 
tennial Weekend held in Towson and Baltimore on May 10-12, 1985. 



End of the First One 
Hundred Years 



The Gala Centennial Weekend festivities began with a welcoming re- 
ception at Pennsylvania Station in Baltimore, where special Goucher 
centennial Amtrak trains brought some of the more than one thousand 
alumnae participants from Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and 
Chicago. At 6:00 p.m. on Friday, May 10, shuttle buses began ferrying 
guests from the campus and various hotels to the Baltimore Conven- 
tion Center for a Toast to Goucher College, an elegant reception and 
dinner followed by the presentation of centennial alumnae awards and 
remarks by the Honorable William Donald Schaefer, mayor of Bal- 
timore. 

Saturday, May 11, proved to be a gorgeous day, perfea for the parade 
of classes which departed from the Pearlstone Center and arrived at 
Kraushaar Auditorium, led by Goucher's founder, John Franklin 
Goucher, and his wife, Mary Fisher Goucher (who on other occasions 
appear disguised as Dr. James L. A. Webb, professor of chemistry, and 
Louisa Whildin Buchner, '26). Senior alumnae were transported by 
antique cars provided by the Chesapeake Region Antique Automobile 
Club of America. Many alumnae dressed as they had in their under- 
graduate days and carried appropriate class banners. In Kraushaar Au- 
ditorium President Dorsey's address on Goucher Today was followed by 
the Goucher centennial film and the presentation of Annual Giving class 
gifts. Luncheon followed in the Latzer Room and the College Center 
courtyard, except for the 25th and 50th reunion classes, who attended 
the president's reception and luncheon in the Alumnae House. 

Following the luncheons, some guests boarded shuttle buses running 
between the campus and the Inner Harbor to enjoy the renaissance of 
the city of Baltimore, while the majority returned to the classroom for a 
Mini-Intellectual Fair that included a variety of presentations ranging 
from "Computer Literacy" to "Etymological Pursuits, or Some Linguis- 
tic Trivia." The evening festivities, appropriately titled "Saturday Night 
Live," featured receptions, dinners, five decade parties with music ap- 
propriate to each period, a concert offered by the Peabody Ragtime 
Ensemble, and "A Salute to Sousa," a ballet choreographed by Goucher 
ballet Artist-in-Residence Jean-Pierre Bonnefoux. The grand finale took 
the form of a centennial fireworks display that could be seen for miles. 
The weekend concluded on Sunday, May 12, with a return to the cam- 
pus for a chapel service, brunch, and final farewells. 

In her thanks to those who helped organize the Centennial Celebra- 
tion, President Dorsey said: 

It's been a wonderful year! From our opening picnic in September through 
convocation, academic symposia, regional celebrations, the run from new 
campus to old, and our grand Gala Weekend, there has been an overwhelm- 
ing spirit of joy and love in the observance of Goucher's looth birthday. The 
success of each of the more than 50 centennial events that took place during 
the past several months has brought credit to Goucher and to the people who 
worked so hard to make this celebration possible. No college could 
survive — and prosper — for 100 years without the very special commitment 



The Gala Centennial 
Weekend 



The Dorsey and affection of its alumnae, students, faculty, staff, and friends. You are what 

Administration makes Goucher such a grand institution. . . . 

The Centennial Celebration may have ended, but the College had 
reached a new beginning. As President Dorsey observed at the Toast to 
Goucher College that opened the Gala Centennial Weekend, "Now it's 
time to begin our second century." 



Afterword: 
The Transition 
to Coeducation 



T 



he beginning of Goucher's sec- 
ond century was less of an anticlimax than might have been anticipated. 
While this book was designed to encompass fifty-five years of Goucher 
College's history, concluding on June 30, 1985, an event of such excep- 
tional importance occurred in 1 986 that to exclude it would be to ignore 
one of the most salient turning points in the history of the College. 

On January 25, 1986, President Dorsey sent to the Goucher commu- 
nity, alumnae, and friends The President's Letter, in which she an- 
nounced the recommendation of a committee of the Board of Trustees 
that the College admit men to Goucher's undergraduate program. 

Predictably, President Dorsey 's announcement provoked a strong re- 
action, largely positive among faculty, administrators, and older alum- 
nae, but largely (though by no means universally) negative on the part of 
current undergraduates and recent graduates. On campus the argu- 
ments for and against a coeducational Goucher were the subject of 
discussions, sometimes emotional, sometimes very thoughtful, in the 
Students' Organization, the College Assembly, the Faculty, and, of 
course, in the pages of the student newspaper, now called the Quin- 
decim since it appears biweekly. As the time for the trustee decision 
approached, a student poll brought forth a negative vote, but the Col- 
lege Assembly (by a vote of 57 in favor, 28 opposed, and four absten- 
tions) and the Faculty (by a corresponding vote of 3 9-1 2.-3) recom- 
mended "an extension of Goucher's mission to include the education of 
men."' 

On May 10, 1986, amid a protest by nearly two hundred students, 
the Board voted to admit men to Goucher's undergraduate program, 30 
members voting in favor, 7 against, and one member abstaining. Patricia 
Goldman, '64, chairman of the Board of Trustees, announced that male 
students would be actively recruited for the fall of 1987.' The reasons 



Afterword: Coeducation underlying this decision are explained in the following account contrib- 
uted by Julie Roy Jeffrey, professor of history. 



The Historical 
Background 



The admission of Goucher's first coeducational class in fall of 1987 
marked the beginning of a new stage in the institution's ongoing life. By the 
time the first male students arrived on campus, most of the community 
greeted them enthusiastically, sensing that coeducation represented an excit- 
ing new opportunity for the College. Yet the Board of Trustees had reached 
the decision to admit men only with difficulty, and some parts of the commu- 
nity had responded to that decision negatively, even tearfully. 

In the early seventies coeducation had twice been publicly debated on the 
campus (in 1970 and 1973) and rejected by the board. As a part of its 
planning efforts in 1982, the board had again rejected the option of a 
coeducational Goucher although the community at large had not known of 
its discussions. Yet five years later coeducation was a fact. What accounted 
for this shift in the board's position on the question of admitting men to the 
College? 



Consequences of the 
1981 Strategic Plan 



2.48 



In 1982 the board had undertaken, as noted earlier, a major planning 
effort to ensure the future of the College. Implementation of the strategic plan 
began at once. Efforts to improve the physical plant, athletic facilities, and 
social life proceeded. In the fall of 1983 a Wells Fargo running course was in 
place. In the spring of 1984 the new student center, Pearlstone, opened. By 
the summer a new language lab was complete. The renovation of dormitories 
and classroom space occurred on schedule. In selected areas, new faculty 
were also recruited in 1981-83 and 1983-84. Admissions efforts were ex- 
panded with more travel, more staff, more research, the use of a segmented 
search process, and better publications. With the retention of the firm of 
Ogilvy and Mather, efforts to make Goucher known outside the mid- 
Atlantic region became regularized. 

Despite all these initiatives, success in attracting young women was not 
forthcoming. In 1983-84 there appeared to be litde pay-off from the Col- 
lege's attempts to create a national market base. And that year was disastrous 
in terms of recruitment in the mid-Atlantic states. Ironically, the numbers 
were most disappointing in Maryland. The class entering in 1984 was sub- 
stantially smaller (by almost seventy students) than the class that preceded it. 
The next few years would continue the disappointing recruitment pattern, 
and the students coming to Goucher appeared to be weaker in terms of their 
other college choices than had once been the case. The decline in the Col- 
lege's enrollment was exceeding the three percent "managed decline" the 
strategic plan had outlined as acceptable. 

In September 1984 sixteen trustees gathered at a retreat site to review and 
to update the 1982 plan. It was now apparent that Goucher's toughest 
competitors were those Seven Sisters who had remained women's institu- 
tions. They were reaching down into Goucher's pool, and the College was 
suffering from their large classes. However, it was equally apparent that the 
coed schools in the mid-Atlantic region were also competing with Goucher 
for some potential students. In response to this situation, the trustees modi- 
fied the 1982 plan, recommending increased admissions efforts, more funds, 
more admissions research. They also suggested convening a group of trustees 
to consider various options that might bring the necessary number of stu- 
dents to the College. In a departure from the recent past, they concluded that 
coeducation might need to be considered in the future as one of these op- 
tions. 



Study of the question of coeducation within the board and senior staff Afterword: Coeducation 
began almost immediately thereafter. In November 1984 the vice president 
for financial affairs prepared a report in which he suggested that if any of the 
basic characteristics of the College identified in the 1982 strategic plan were 
in question, then the entire plan was in question. The basic assumption of 
that plan had been that Goucher could attract enough students to allow it to 
survive as a small, quality liberal arts college for women. Poor admissions 
results and the general disinterest of young women in single sex institutions 
undermined that assumption. "There is reason to believe," he pointed out, 
"that better penetration of our current market base . . . may not be sufficient 
to meet the enrollment need." ' Although no one considered that the admis- 
sion of men would prove to be a panacea for the enrollment problem, senior 
staff began to weigh the costs and benefits of coeducation. 

In a board retreat in early 1985, a small group of trustees reached consen- 
sus that the College could manage downward only "so far." All alternatives 
had to be considered. Nor were the trustees and the senior staff the only ones 
worrying over Goucher's future by 1985. At the March board meeting that 
year, the president distributed a faculty resolution expressing concern that 
declining enrollments might mean cuts in program and staff. She also re- 
ported to the board that she had hosted three dinners with faculty to hear 
their ideas on making Goucher more attractive to prospective students. But 
by the end of that year, the news was still not good. At the May board meeting 
the administration reported that while applications had been up, acceptances 
stood at the level of the previous year. 

When Patricia Goldman became the chair of the board in the fall of 1985, Making the Decision 
she asked a small group of trustees to take yet another look at the strategic 
plan of 198Z. Background materials for the group, prepared by the senior 
staff, highlighted the pattern of enrollment that could lead to a total student 
body of 700 by 1989-90 with a student/faculty ratio of less than 7:1. Recent 
figures were discouraging: an unusually high freshman-sophomore attrition 
rate (almost 25 percent) and a dramatic decline in inquiries for 1986. Market 
research studies on Goucher students and those who had chosen to go 
elsewhere were also included in the trustee packet. While none of this mate- 
rial was entirely unfamiliar, it did highlight the serious situation in which the 
College found itself. 

As part of the background material for the trustee task force meeting in 
October, the senior staff also prepared several documents: a consideration of 
the strengths and weaknesses of a single sex or a coeducational Goucher; two 
models for a new Goucher — a more focused single sex school vs. a "truly 
equal and novel coeducational institution." Despite the need to deliberate 
carefully and thoughtfully, the message was clear. The trustees did not have 
the luxury of study alone. The budget was not tight, but falling enrollments 
would eventually have an adverse impact on the College's strong financial 
position. Some critical decisions about the future would have to be made. 
■^ Discussions within the task force resulted in the elimination of the option 
of a college "more specifically centered on ideological feminism." There was 
no rush to embrace coeducation, however. The task force wished to study 
successful single sex institutions but also decided to "look carefully" at 
coeducation. 

When the group met again in November, the trustees had been provided 
with a summary of societal factors that undermined the position of women's 
colleges, an analysis of arguments supporting coeducation, a consideration 
of the impact of coeducation on Goucher's mission, and materials from 
Washington and Lee, an institution that had recently undergone the process 
of coeducation. They also had the information on models of successful single 249 



Afterword: Coeducation sex colleges that they had requested. The schools which Goucher most re- 

sembled, however, had substantial opportunities for cross-registration with 
other institutions that provided them with a "heterosexual population" — an 
opportunity that Goucher did not have. 

As a result of its studies, the trustee task force concluded that the board 
should open enrollment to men. Their recommendation was conveyed to the 
entire board for discussion at a specially called board meeting in January 
1986. President Dorsey's detailed letter to the trustees chronicled the de- 
liberations that had taken place, the alternatives considered and rejected 
(such as accepting substantial enrollment losses, abandoning the liberal arts 
curriculum, relying on continuing education to solve the enrollment prob- 
lem), and the task force's conclusion that coeducation might be the "best way 
to prepare women for the next century." 

At the board meeting in late January, trustees expressed mixed opinions 
about the task force's recommendation. At the meeting's end, they passed a 
resolution requesting that the College community provide the board with 
comments on the task force proposal. Debate about the merits and disadvan- 
tages of a coeducational Goucher would soon begin. 

The administration was careful to inform the College community, alum- 
nae, parents of students, friends of the College, donors, and prospective 
students that the trustees were considering the possibility of coeducation. In 
a letter sent in March, the president clarified the timetable: the board would 
make the final decision about coeducation at its May meeting. 

The notice that the board was weighing coeducation mobilized some 
parts of the campus as few other issues had done. The dean of students met 
with students and found them initially "negative and emotionally charged." 
A group of trustees came to campus and met with seventy-five students. Some 
students hostile to the idea of changing the college's identity argued, without 
evidence, that declining enrollments were the result of faulty recruitment 
procedures. Buttons and teeshirts appeared with anti-coeducation slogans. 
A protest rally drew about 100 students while fifteen students picketed the 
Alumnae House when the trustees met there in May. Many students, how- 
ever, seemed quietly to accept the possibility of a coeducational Goucher. 

Other parts of the College community were more positive than the stu- 
dents. The faculty, already concerned about declining enrollments, expressed 
generally favorable reactions to the idea in the meetings held with them. 
There was some division of opinion, however; the student newspaper pub- 
lished the views of faculty who opposed the move as well as of those who 
favored it. Alumnae expressed their views on the telephone, in various meet- 
ings held around the country, and in writing. Mail ran about ten to one in 
favor of coeducation although alumnae opposed to coeducation were often 
prominent at regional gatherings. 

Various campus groups began to study the question of a coeducational 
Goucher. The Maypole Committee, which had produced a vision statement 
for a single sex college, drafted a vision statement for a coeducational 
Goucher. An expanded Student Life Committee investigated the implica- 
tions of coeducation for student life. A series of visitors from formerly single 
sex colleges came to Goucher to describe their schools' experiences with 
coeducation. To help with the College's deliberations. Special Assistant to 
the President Ethel Viti undertook a major study of four former women's 
colleges (Skidmore, Vassar, Manhattanville, Connecticut College) that had 
admitted men in the early seventies. Her report was ready in April and 
provided useful information on the process of coeducation, the impact on 
academic programs, athletics, admissions, and student life. She paid special 
attention to the status of women after coeducation, and her conclusions were 
generally positive. She observed that "Goucher College is well positioned to 
250 undertake a move to coeducation at this time." The advice for Goucher that 



she heard as she visited the other colleges was that if Goucher decided to Afterword: Coeducation 
become a coeducational institution, "the College should do so without apol- 
ogies, with no regrets, and with total commitment to a superior education 
for both men and women." 

When the trustees met in early May, some attempted to delay the final 
vote until the fall. They failed. The vote (30 yes, 7 no, i abstention)"' showed 
that the majority of trustees were convinced that coeducation was a neces- 
sary step for the College's survival. After the vote was taken, the president left 
the Alumnae House to tell the students who were waiting to hear the deci- 
sion. It was an emotional meeting; Goucher had made a momentous decision 
but one that the board clearly felt was essential for the successful future of the 
college. 

Despite the opposition of many students to coeducation at Goucher, 
Quindecim, in an editorial published on May 14, 1986, under the title 
"The Challenge of Change," expressed its confidence in Goucher's fu- 



With the exception of the day of our founding in 1 8 8 5 , May i o, 1 9 8 6, will 
be remembered by many of us as the most important day in the history of 
Goucher College. On May 10, a semester marked by debate, protest, and 
emotion culminated in a result that changes Goucher's philosophy and fu- 
ture. 

While the next ten years of transition will present a new challenge, as the 
incoming editors of the Quindecim, we believe that Goucher will meet this 
challenge and succeed as we have throughout the past 100 years. 

In the i88o's, our founders faced opposition when they presented to the 
State of Maryland the novel idea of a College solely dedicated to the educa- 
tion of women. In the early 1940's, Goucher students voiced opposition to 
the school's move from Baltimore to Towson, a change many thought would 
completely alter Goucher's character. For several decades during the war 
years, financial difficulties threatened the stability of Goucher's future. Per- 
sistance and loyalty on the part of the Goucher community always enabled us 
to overcome our problems. 

Now, we are faced with a contemporary challenge; this is no time for 
recriminations. We, like our predecessors, must unite and adapt to change. 
Only through mutual support and optimism can we continue our proud 
history of academic excellence. 

Former Goucher President Otto Kraushaar, witness to social change at 
Goucher during the 1 960's, says today, as our forerunners must have thought 
during the challenges of the past, "I am confident that Goucher will triumph 
in the end." 

As the conclusion of undergraduate years and the beginning of the 
next phase of education is celebrated by a commencement, so Goucher 
may be thought of as having reached its own commencement on May 
10, 1986, fulfilling one stage of its destiny and preparing for a new 
departure. It is too soon to know how the College will meet the chal- 
lenges that await it as it makes the transition to its new mission, but 
there are signs ( perhaps omens) of continued vitality on the campus: in 
June 1986 faculty members sighted twin fawns frolicking near the 
woods behind the library. Whether the fawns are single sex or coeduca- 
tional additions to the life of the campus remains to be discovered. In 
any event, they expressed with proper Goucher spirit the excitement of a 
new day in a new life. 



Notes 



Chapter i. A Watershed Year: 1930 

I . One is tempted — and the urge may not be entirely resisted in the following 
pages — to treat the events of the Robertson years in almost Manichean terms: a 
struggle between Good and Evil in which, happily, the former prevails in the 
end. A similar but more modern analogy might be suggested by Tolkien's The 
Lord of the Rings, though it would be difficult to picture President Robertson as 
Frodo the Hobbit. Perhaps imagining the scenario in terms of David and Goliath 
is most appropriate, with David Robertson prophetically named and Goliath 
represented by the combined impersonal forces of Depression and War. From 
any point of view, the advent of President Robertson, especially seen against the 
backdrop of the earlier history of the College and particularly the Guth years, 
clearly constitutes a renaissance in the evolution of the institution. This may 
justify beginning this sequel eight years before the end of the earlier history. 

i. Transcript of oral interview by C. 1. Winslow, March 15, 1971. 

3 . Transcript of oral interview by Jean H. Baker, July z 5 , 1 97 3 . The trustee in 
question was Mr. John Alcock, for whom Alcock House is named. 

4. Transcript of oral interview by C. 1. Winslow, May iz, 1971. 

5. Knipp and Thomas, The History ofGoucher College, pp. 299-300. One 
of the points of sharpest contrast between Presidents Guth and Robertson was 
that while Dr. Guth did raise money for the College, Dr. Robertson was de- 
cidedly ineffectual in this area. The Board of Trustees at that time was largely 
composed of members of old Baltimore families who, all too often, had little 
money to give and were reluctant to become involved in outside fund-raising. 

6. An instance of his sometimes precipitous action occurred in early 19 18, 
when anti-German sentiments were running very high. President Guth de- 
manded the resignation of one of the most beloved and respected members of the 
faculty. Professor Hans Froelicher, on grounds that, while asserting complete 
loyalty to the United States, Professor Froelicher had expressed sympathy for the 
German people. (Froelicher was pure Swiss, incidentally, with not a drop of 
German blood.) A group of students devoted to Professor Froelicher wrote to 



Mrs. Francis B. Sayre (Jessie Woodrow Wilson, '08), asking her to bring the 
matter to her father's attention. On Monday, May 6, President Wilson wrote 
from the White House to President Guth expressing his distress at the action of 
the trustees and asserting his complete faith m the loyalty of Professor Froelicher. 
President Guth reversed his decision and later tried to make up for what he came 
to realize was a great injustice. In 1 919 Professor Froelicher succeeded Dr. Guth 
as acting president. (Wilson to Guth is cited in Baker, Woodrow Wilson, Life and 
Letters, pp. 124-16; see also Moment, "Guth and Academic Freedom," pp. 
1 2.- 1 3 ; also transcript of oral interview of Fians Froelicher, Jr. by C. I. Winslow, 
n.d. [ca. 1972]). 

7. History of Goucher College, pp. 307-8. 

8. Transcript of oral interview by Kenneth O. Walker, May 4, 1972. 

9. Dorothy Stimson, when she became acting president, asked to see the 
College budget and discovered there was none. (Transcript of oral interview by 
C. I. Winslow, March 18, 197 1.) 

ID. Minutes of the Board of Trustees (hereafter cited as Trustee mins.), 
October 6, 1930. 



Chapter z. Restructuring the College (1930-1937) 

1. Until 193 1 the College had two deliberative bodies, the Board of Control 
and the Board of Instruction. The Board of Control, which consisted of certain 
senior faculty members and administrators, made policy recommendations to 
the president in matters usually pertaining to the academic program. The Board 
of Instruction, composed of the entire full-time faculty, was little more than a 
forum for debate. 

2. The result of this program was to bring good students to the College in a 
time of declining enrollments. 

3. Minutes of the Executive Committee, Board of Trustees (hereafter cited as 
Exec. Comm. mins.), December 18, 1930. 

4. First drafts of the departmental self-evaluations take up sixty-seven pages 
following the March 16, 193 1, minutes of the Executive Committee of the 
Board of Trustees. 

5. History of Goucher College, pp. 337-8. 

6. President Robertson clearly deserves great credit for having brought about 
this long overdue revision in the College's system of governance. 

7. The American Association of University Professors, the traditional protec- 
tor of the tenure principle, was founded in 1 9 1 5 ; the first Goucher chapter of the 
AAUP was organized on February 18, 1922. 

8. A proposal for establishing a committee on reappointment, promotion, 
and tenure was discussed at length by the Faculty on February 1 4 and March 1 3, 
1948, but since final action required changes in the by-laws, the decision was 
postponed until after President Kraushaar had taken office. On April 1 8, 1949, 
the Executive Committee of the Board of Trustees approved the changes in the 
College by-laws that created the Committee on Reappointment, Promotion, and 
Tenure, composed entirely of faculty members. 

9. History of Goucher College, p. 338. 

10. Trustee mins.. May 23, 1932. Italics added. 

11. Ibid., May 23, 1932. 

1 2. This is historically — if not logically — understandable; Dr. Lilian Welsh, 
founder of the Department of Physiology and Hygiene, also established the 
Physical Education Department in the early years of the College. 

I 3. Minutes of the Faculty (hereafter cited as Fac. mins.), October 17, 1932. 
14. The record was broken in 1969-70 when the Faculty — in the throes of 



introducing the next major curricular and governance reforms in Goucher Notes to Pages 14-Z3 

history — met twenty-three times! 

15. The legislative document containing the provisions of the new plan is 
reproduced in the Minutes of the Faculty, May 14, 1934, and in the Minutes of 
the trustee Executive Committee, May 25, 1934. 

1 6. It is interesting that while the 3-3-3 program (an annual student program 
of three courses in each of three terms) aroused widespread interest, no other 
institution copied it until the late fifties. 

17. History of Goucher College, p. 42.6. 

18. In its emphasis on objectives, the 1934 curriculum bears some re- 
semblance to the core curriculum developed in 1981, which placed a similar 
stress on goals; see chapter 19. 

19. History of Goucher College, pp. 345-46. 

zo. Goucher College Weekly (hereafter cited as Weekly), October i z, 1934. 

zi. History of Goucher College, pp. 350-51. Professor Kenneth O. Walker 
observes that by the time he came to Goucher in 1945, faculty and students had 
adjusted to the new program and were very proud of it. "Of all things, this was 
what made Goucher distinctive." (To the author, February Z3, 1985.) 

zz. A remarkably detailed eleven-page statistical summary of the results of 
the first Sophomore General Examination ( 1 93 5 ) is appended to the minutes of 
the October iz, 1935, meeting of the Faculty. 

Z3. Fac. mins., April 9, 1934. 

24. Trustee mins., May 23, 1932. 

25. Fac. mins., January 16, 1933. 

26. Ibid., November 9, 1935. 

27. Transcript of oral interview by Kenneth O. Walker, May 4, 1972. 

z8. The president of the Alumnae Association Eleanor Diggs Corner had 
actually appointed the association's first Adult Education Committee in 1930; it 
operated a program on a no-charge or very minimal charge basis from 1930 to 
1933, distributing reading lists and providing free lectures and concerts. From 
1934 to 1938, the Alumnae Association presented a series of weekly courses of 
college caliber given by members of the Goucher faculty. (For further develop- 
ments in continuing education see chapters 9 and 19.) 

29. In 1931—32 Professor Charles W Lemmi was offering a four-semester 
sequence in elementary and intermediate Italian, followed by six semesters of 
Italian literature; but when he died in July, 1943, Italian disappeared tem- 
porarily from the curriculum. Elementary Portuguese, first offered in 1942, 
filled this gap until 1951, when it, too, was dropped. In 1951 French, German, 
and Spanish combined under a new title, the Department of Modern Languages 
and Literatures — a safe umbrella designation, given the circumstances. Ele- 
mentary Italian returned in 1952, replacing elementary Portuguese, but it disap- 
peared again in 1959 in favor of a three-term course in elementary Russian. 
Russian became a major in 1962. 

30. Fac. mins., January iz and April 13, 1935; February 13, 1937. 

3 1 . Dry promotions recurred during the Perry administration when the Col- 
lege again found itself in a highly unfavorable financial situation, but this time it 
was a faculty committee that recommended them since otherwise there would 
have been no promotions at all (see chapter 15). 

3Z. Exec. Comm. mins., December 18, 1930. 

33. Ibid., January z6, 1935. 

34. Fac. mins., December iz, 193Z. 

35. Exec. Comm. mins., October 31, 1933. 

36. History of Goucher College, pp. 369—71. 

37. Trustee mins., October 17, 194Z. 

38. Exec. Comm. mins.. May 20, 1936. zjs 



Notes to Pages z}-}3 39. Trustee mins., June 8, 1937. Even though, as of October 5, 1937, the 

College enrollment was 680, only 57 percent of the applicants had been accept- 
ed; obviously, despite the financial woes of the institution, standards were being 
carefully maintained. 

40. This permanent Faculty Planning Committee is said to have been the first 
of its kind in the United States. 

41. Weekly, October i, 1937. 

42. Trustee mins., June 8, 1937. 

43. History of Gaucher College, p. 33. 

44. President Dorsey recently discovered in the course of her travels that the 
quasi-centenarian Zander machines had escaped the iron mongers and were still 
busily engaged in toning muscles at The Homestead, a large resort hotel in West 
Virginia. 

45. History of Goucher College, p. 515. 

46. Weekly, February 13, 1930. 

47. Dean Emeritus Dorothy Stimson to the author, May 14, 1985. Accord- 
ing to Dean Emeritus of Students Martha A. Nichols, a few select students were 
also asked to flutter and were carefully instructed by the Student Counselor, 
Frances Conner, in the correct dress and behavior. 

48. Weekly, March 19, 193 i. 

49. Ibid., November 3, 1932.. 

50. History of Goucher College, p. 485. 

51. Weekly, April 23, 1932. 

52. Ibid., November 10, 1932. 

53. History of Goucher College, p. 470. 

54. Fac. mins., December 11, 1933. 

55. Goucher students at this time habitually referred to their sororities as 
"fraternities." 

56. Weekly, January 24, 1936. 

57. Ibid., November 6, 1936. 

58. In 1935-36, according to Dean Nichols, many students left the class- 
room at a given signal to support an Oxford peace rally. Faculty reaction to this 
activity varied from support to refusal to allow participants to return to class 
that period. (To the author, June 16, 1986.) 

59. One of Weekly's fancier touches in the late thirties was its habit of 
publishing reviews of foreign-language books composed in the same languages 
as the books themselves; a number of book reviews in French, Spanish, Ger- 
man, and Italian sprinkle Weekly's pages in this period, the first (in French) 
appearing on December 3, 1937. 

Chapter 3. The Beginning of "Greater Goucher" (1938-194ZJ 

1. History of Goucher College, p. 262. 

2. Ibid., p. 300. 

3. Transcript of oral interview by C. I. Wmslow, March 18, 1971. 

4. History of Goucher College, p. 391. 

5. Ibid., p. 392. 

6. Transcript of oral interview by C. I. Winslow, September 20, 1972. 

7. Transcript of oral interview by Kenneth O. Walker, March 25, 1971. 

8. History of Goucher College, pp. 392-93. 

9. Trustee mins., October 31, 1938. 

10. History of Goucher College, pp. 387-88. 

11. Weekly, September 30 and October 15, 1938. 

2j6 12. Ibid., February 28, 1939. The concept of residence halls subdivided into 



several houses was apparently modeled on the Yale campus, where upperclass- Notes to Pages 33-42 

men live in "colleges"with multiple subdivisions. 

13. Ibid. 

14. Exec. Comm. mins., June 7, 1939. 

15. Ibid., November 14, 1939. 

16. Ibid., December 5, 1932. 

17. Ibid., February 13, 1940. 

1 8. Weekly, March i, 1940. 

19. Trustee mins., May 28, 1940. 

20. Ibid., June 4, 1940. According to the Minutes of the Executive Commit- 
tee, July 29, 1940, $323,290.15 had been subscribed to the campaign, but the 
accumulated deficit as of June 30 was $132,543.38, which mcluded $34,355.43 
for unbudgeted expenditures from the building fund. 

21. Exec. Comm. mins., August 23, 1940. 

22. Ibid., October 22, 1940. 

23. Weekly, January 13 and March 3, 1939. 

24. Ibid., April 29, 1938. 

25. Ibid., February 9, 1940. 

26. Ibid., January 26, 1940. 

27. Exec. Comm. mins., January 14, 1941. 

28. During this period some faculty members were encouraged to take leaves 
of absence; they did, and found jobs, often in activities unrelated to their profes- 
sional expertise. (Professor Kenneth Walker to the author, February 23, 1985.) 

29. Trustee mins., February 11, 1941. In 1974 the College eliminated the 
German major and terminated the position of Associate Professor Fiertha 
Krotkoff. At the same time the Classics Department was discontinued, resulting 
in the loss of two additional faculty positions. A more detailed account of these 
relatively recent reductions appears in chapter 17 in the context of the period in 
which they occurred. 

30. Ibid., March 11, 1941. 

31. Ibid., April 8, 1941. 

32. Trustee mins., June 9, 1941. 

33. This technique continued to be used throughout the Kraushaar years. 

34. Trustee mins., June 9, 1941. 

3 5 . For a complete list of the sales of buildings on the downtown campus, see 
table 4. 

36. Exec. Comm. mins., November 4, 1941. 

37. The College's first landscape architect was apparently too modest to sign 
his work; no trace of a clay bordered bed of primroses exists on the campus. 

38. Jonathan Edwards, 1703-1758: A Biography, by Ola Elizabeth 
Winslow (New York: Macmillan Co., 1940). 

39. Weekly, January 24, 1941. 

40. Ibid., October 24, 1941. 

41. Ibid., November 7, 1941. 

42. Exec. Comm. mins., December 11, 1941. 

43. "National Service, 1941-45" folder. 

44. Weekly, January 16, 1942. 

4 5 . Janice Benario '4 3 and Irene Butterbaugh '4 3 to the author, September 9, 
1985. 

46. Weekly, January 30, 1942. 

47. Exec. Comm. mins., February 10, 1942. 

48. Fac. mins., February 28, 1942. 

49. Weekly, February 20, 1942. 

50. Transcript of oral interview of Professor C. I. Winslow by Kenneth O. 

Walker, May 4, 1972. 257 



Notes to Pages 42-47 5 i . Exec. Comm. mins., March 19, 

5Z. Fac. mins., January 9, 1943. 

53. Ibid. 

54. Weekly, February 5, 1943. 

55. Ibid., April i6, 1943. 

56. Fac. mins., March 13, 1943. 

57. Exec. Comm. mins., June 7, 19^ 

58. Ibid., September zy, 1943. 

59. Ibid., May 14, 1945. 

60. Fac. mins., June 7, 1946. 



Chapter 4. The Final Years of the Robertson Administration (i<)4i-i948) 

1. Weekly articles appearing within one month include "Towson Dormitory 
is Progressing" (September 26, 1941), "Celebrate Raising of Dorm Ridge Pole" 
(October 3, 194 1), and "Moore and Hutchins Explain Plans for Campus Build- 
ings at a Greater Goucher" (October 24, 1941). 

2. Exec. Comm. mins., January 13, 1942. 

3. Ibid., February 10, 1942. 

4. Ibid. 

5. Ibid., March 10, 1942. 

6. Ibid., May 20, 1942. 

7. Weekly, November 20, 1942. 

8. Exec. Comm. mins.. May 20, 1942. 

9. Ibid., July 8, 1942. 

10. Weekly, October 9, 1942. 

11. Fac. mins., September 21, 1942. Professor Kenneth O. Walker notes that 
the very real problems of a dual campus lasted until 1952, but that adversity 
often has unexpected benefits. "Faculty and students riding the buses developed 
a marvelous esprit de corps. I doubt that College morale has ever been better 
than between 1945 af"^ 1952-" (To the author, February 23, 1985.) 

12. In a comment to the author Dr. Sara deFord, professor emeritus of 
English, noted that these subjects were chosen because they did not need "equip- 
ment." She added that she taught in a trunkroom and later in the recreation 
room at a Ping-Pong table. 

13. Vanaheim Hall was sold on May 13, 1942, to Dr. Leo Schlenger for 
$9,500; Midgard was purchased by Federal Construction Corporation on May 
23, 1942, for $7,500; Gimle Annex was sold to H. Earle Rose on July i, 1942, 
for $5,000; Folkvang, Trudheim, Trudheim Annex, and Dunnock were collec- 
tively sold on August 26, 1942, to Kenneth Milford Cohen for $16,000. For a 
complete list of sales of buildings on the downtown campus see table 4. 

14. Trustee mins., October 17, 1942. 

15. Fac. mins., November 14, 1942. 

16. Weekly, November 13 and 20, 1942. 

17. Exec. Comm. mins., April 12, 1943. 

18. Ibid., October 18, 1943. 

19. Ibid., May 8, 1944; November 26, 1945. The gate stood on Dulaney 
Valley Road at approximately the level of Mary Fisher Hall, just south of the 
present entrance to the beltway east. 

20. Ibid., September 18, 1944. 

21. Ibid., September 17, 1945. 

22. Ibid., March 18, 1946. 

23. Ibid., November 19, 1945. 

24. Further details on the beltway and entrance road problems appear in 
chapters 7 and 8. 



25- Exec. Comm. mins., September 23, 1946. Notes to Pages 47—50 

26. Trustee mins., December 11, 1946. 

27. Weekly, February 7, 1947. 

28. Fac. mms., March 8, 1947. 

29. Exec. Comm. mins., May 12, 1947. 

30. Ibid., September 22, 1947. 

31. Weekly, Oaober 3, 1947- 

32. Ibid., December 5, 1947. Bennett House was named for Eleanor A. 
Bennett, m whose memory Benjamin Franklin Bennett, the donor of the original 
Bennett Hall, had named that building. Robinson House honored Myra Dod- 
son Robinson, wife of Edward Levi Robinson, a trustee from 19 1 3 to 1943, who 
in his will provided generously for her memorial. Dr. Lilian Welsh, one of the 
College's most memorable facultv' members, came to Goucher in 1894 and 
founded Goucher's Department of Physiology and Hygiene, the first such de- 
partment in a women's college. 

33. Ibid., November 14, 1947. 

34. Exec. Comm. mins., December 15, 1947. It was symptomatic of the rise 
in construction costs during this period that the price for building Residence 
Hall No. 2 (the future Heubeck Hall) was estimated at $1,352,631, approxi- 
mately double the cost of $619,698 for Mary Fisher Hall (Ibid., November 24, 
1947)- 

35. Ibid., February 9, 1948. 

36. Nature occasionally joined the depression and the war in assailing the 
College, notably in late May 1947, when a tornado struck Mary Fisher Hall. 
Luckily it was a small twister that did only minor damage to the building, 
though it uprooted several valuable trees (Ibid., May 26, 1947). 

37. Ibid., June 7, 1948. 

38. Ibid., April 15, 1946; April 19, 1948. 

39. Ibid., March 10, 1947. 

40. Ibid., November 17, 1947. 

41. For a complete list of sales of property on the downtown campus see 
table 4. 

42. Exec. Comm. mins., January 6, 1947. 

43. Ibid., July 14, 1947. 

44. Ibid., September 22, 1947. 

45. For details of these negotiations see chapter 8. 

46. Exec. Comm. mins., September 27, 1943. 

47. Trustee mins., January- 20, 1946. 

48. Julia Rogers, though not a Goucher alumna, was a Baltimore woman 
very interested in women's education. 

49. Exec. Comm. mins., February 4, 1946. 

50. Ibid., August 30, 1943. 

51. Trustee mins., October 21, 1943. 

52. Ibid., April 27, 1945. 

53. According to Dorothy Stimson, the second Mrs. Robertson "was a joy! 
Dr. Robertson mellowed after he married his second wife. She would not let him 
be stiff and pompous." (To the author. May 14, 1985.) 

54. Trustee mins., Oaober 17, 1945. 

55. Ibid., October 16, 1946. 

56. President Robertson bade farewell to the students by substituting for the 
annual spring receptions held at his house a student boatride on Chesapeake 
Bay, an event that became a tradition under his successor, President Kraushaar 
(Exec. Comm. mins., April 26, 1948). 

57. Miss Stimson retired after thirty-four years of service to the College as 
teacher and administrator in 1955 (Trustee mins., June 11, 1955). On April 18, 

1955, the Executive Committee approved a resolution in her honor to be pre- 259 



Notes to Pages ;o-68 sented to her at the 1955 commencement, at which she would be the speaker. 

The College had awarded her the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws as part of 
the convocation held on February 15, 195 1, at which John Fulton, professor of 
the history of science in the Yale Medical School, delivered the first Stimson 
Lecture (Exec. Comm. mins., November 13, 1950). 

58. Exec. Comm. mins., February 9 and Z3, 1948. Dr. Kelley served as acting 
dean until 1949 when Anne Gary Pannell was appomted to the office. Dr. 
Panneli left Goucher at the end of one year to become president of Sweet Briar 
College; she was succeeded in 1950 by Elizabeth Geen, whose tenure as dean 
lasted until 1968, when she, in turn, was succeeded by Rhoda M. Dorsey. 

59. Ibid., October 29 and November 2.6, 1945. 

60. At this writing, Rhoda M. Dorsey has recently completed a term as 
president of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools; Goucher has 
been a member of the Association since the latter's founding in 1888. 

61. Fac. mins., April 10, 1948. One effect of the abolition of the sororities 
was the isolation of the city students from the resident students; a benefit of the 
sororities had been to bring the two groups together socially. 

62. Exec. Comm. mins.. May 3, 1946. 

63. Weekly, October 20, 1944. 

64. Professor Kenneth O. Walker notes that while students were "in constant 
conflict" over it, the Tone Committee had its merits; "in the fifties, you should 
have heard our students comment contemptuously on the way students dressed 
at other women's colleges." (To the author, February 23, 1985.) 



Chapter 5. Early Perceptions of Goucher by a New President (1948) 

1. Dr. Kraushaar suffers the misfortune of having the most frequently mis- 
pronounced name of any Goucher president. His surname is pronounced 
"Kraus-haar," not "Krau-shaar." The two syllables, which mean "curly hair" 
in German, are enunciated separately, and the "sh" combination is not a single 
sound. (Compare the English word "grasshopper" with the descriptive phrase 
for one who goes out to buy grass: "grass shopper.") 

2. President Kraushaar soon learned to value Skip as a trustworthy and 
dependable member of the College workforce. 

3. The trustee Executive Committee tabled on January 16, 1950, the idea of 
building faculty houses on campus; the idea apparently did not arise again 
except in the revised "Master Plan for the Towson Campus" (Goucher College 
Archives) presented by Mr. Hideo Sasaki in 1 9 5 8. In any event, that aspect of the 
master plan was never carried out. 

4. Many of Goucher's competitors were accepting male veterans at the ex- 
pense of females, thereby increasing applications to Goucher. 

5. History of Goucher College, p. 343. 

6. Dr. Kraushaar's father was president of Wartburg College ("a struggling 
Lutheran institution at Clinton, Iowa; I had first seen the light of day in one of 
the college buildings"); his brother was president of a small Lutheran college in 
Texas. 



Chapter 6. Completion of the "Minimal Campus" ('1948-1954^ 

1. Trustee mins., October 25, 1948. 

2. Heubeck and Stimson halls were deliberately built in stages. As a result, 
the reader may experience difficulty in identifying buildings under a succession 
of temporary names. The basic sequence of residence halls was as follows: 



(i) Residence Hall No. i, Mary Fisher Hall (1938-1942); (z) Residence Hall Notes to Pages 68-69 

No. 2, begun in the Robertson administration, later called the Bennett- 
Robinson Dormitory (after the names of the first two completed houses), fin- 
ished in several stages m the Kraushaar administration and finally named Anna 
Heubeck Hall {1947-58); (3) Residence Hall No. 3, Froelicher Hall (1949- 
50), begun after but completed before Heubeck Hall; and (4) Residence Hall 
No. 4, Stimson Hall {1960-66), also built deliberately in stages in order to 
permit a gradual increase in the size of the student body. 

3. The building consumed by fire was the Barn, which Dr. Kraushaar dis- 
cusses in chapter 7. 

4. Pietro Belluschi, dean emeritus of the School of Architecture at the Massa- 
chusetts Institute of Technology, the architect of Goucher's College Center, 
agreed with Dr. Kraushaar about the dispersal of buildings in the original plan 
for the campus. In an undated oral interview by C. I. Winslow (ca. 1972), Dean 
Belluschi suggested that "the texture was a little bit too loose. ... In my mind, 
and this is a personal feeling, you should not be afraid to get thmgs closer 
together." The Faculty Planning Committee, however, apparently took a differ- 
ent view. According to the "Objectives and Summary of the Plan" accompany- 
ing the 1958 revised "Master Plan for the Towson Campus" prepared by Mr. 
Hideo Sasaki, "on November 8, 1957, the Faculty Planning Committee again 
strongly stated its position that there is 'the necessity for avoiding an appearance 
of crowdedness on the campus.' Dr. C. 1. Winslow, chairman of the Faculty 
Planning Committee, wrote in a memorandum to President Kraushaar, 'The 
Committee wishes to go on record as not being in sympathy with any plan 
which would remove the sense of openness and spaciousness which now charac- 
terizes the campus.' " Sasaki proposed a compromise: build new buildings in 
clusters, with adequate green space between the clusters. 

5. Trustee mins., January 18, 1949. 

6. On November xz, 1948, the Executive Committee voted to recommend to 
the full board a campaign to raise $2,000,000 "or so much of that amount as 
may be determined by the Campaign leadership as an attamable goal." The 
committee proposed three steps: {i) the enlistment of outstanding leadership, 
{2) a canvass of potential large donors, and {3) consideration of the advisability 
of a general appeal, with or without professional guidance. On December 12, 
1949, the full board approved a resolution that $2,000,000 be sought in a 
nationwide appeal to be launched in February 1950. (The campaign was suc- 
cessfully completed, but not until 1954.) 

7. President Robertson was particularly concerned with the library and de- 
voted to it the kind of special consideration that President Kraushaar later gave 
to the architecture and landscaping of the campus — which is not to say that 
either of them had unique points of focus, but rather that each developed partic- 
ular interests that worked to the benefit of the College. 

8. At the Board of Trustees meeting on October 25, 1948, President 
Kraushaar outlined his recommendations for the proper sequence of steps to 
take in order to move the current student body to the Towson campus: {i ) com- 
plete enough facilities to house 1 90 additional students (the number currently in 
residence in the city); (2) complete the humanities building; (3) construct the 
library; (4) construct a combined auditorium, gymnasium, and student ac- 
tivities building; ( 5 ) complete the science building. At its meeting on November 
22 the Executive Committee voted unanimously to accept President Kraushaar's 
recommendation to defer construction of the library and adopt Residence Hall 
No. 3 as the next building project. 

9. Exec. Comm. mins., February 21, 1949. 

10. The minutes of the Executive Committee's meeting on September 19, 

1949, record the merger of the Alumnae Gift Fund into the Goucher Fund and 261 



Notes to Pages 69-72 the transfer of alumnae records to the office of Mr. Donald Hammond. (For a 

more detailed treatment of the Alumnae Gift Building Campaign see chapter 
10.) 

1 1. On December io, 1948, the Executive Committee had approved a three- 
bay extension to the northeast wing of Van Meter Hall to hold administrative 
offices. 

iz. At its meeting on December 6, 1948, the Executive Committee approved 
the selections of Messrs. Moore and Hutchins as architects for Residence Hall 
No. 3, which was to cost no more than $850,000 overall. At this point, only the 
first two houses (Bennett and Robinson) of Residence Hall No. z had been 
completed; they housed ninety-seven students. 

13. Exec. Comm. mins., April 4, 1949- 

14. At this time, two other enhancements of the campus resulted from the 
Executive Committee's approval, on October 17, 1949, of President 
Kraushaar's motion to accept a bid of $1,059 for a permanent riding ring on the 
campus, and the committee's further approval, on November 21, 1 949, of a bid 
of $1 ,025 for a second hockey field. (President Kraushaar had announced to the 
Board of Trustees on October 25, 1948, that the first hockey field had been 
completed.) 

15. Exec. Comm. mins., September 18, 1950. 

16. Ibid., December 15, 1972. 

17. Trustee mins., June 13, 1953. 

1 8. It was, however, a good library with a notable lack of substandard or 
duplicate materials. 

19. Mr. Hammond recommended the organization of a Board of Overseers 
to the Executive Committee on December 5, 1949; the full board met on 
December 12 to discuss the issue. 

20. On September 18, 1950, President Kraushaar reported to the Executive 
Committee that Froelicher Hall — except for Alcock House — would be ready 
for occupancy by October i, 1950. Alfheim Hall would reopen to accommo- 
date students scheduled for Alcock House. On October 2, 1950, the president 
announced to the committee that 135 students were now settled in Froelicher 
Hall, though West House was not yet completely finished. The dedication of 
Alcock House (named for Trustee and Treasurer John L. Alcock) would take 
place on October 28; the other Froelicher houses had not yet been given their 
final names. 

21. The Executive Committee chose the name Froelicher Hall for Residence 
Hall No. 3 on February 13, 1950; the title honored both Dr. Hans Froelicher 
and his wife Dr. Frances Mitchell Froelicher, each of whom was a member of the 
original faculty of the College. The committee also voted to name Residence 
Hall No. 2 Guth Hall, subject to the approval of Mrs. Guth, and to name the 
houses of Mary Fisher Hall for Clara L. Bacon, professor of mathematics 
(1897-1934); Summerfield Baldwin, an incorporator of the College and later 
president of the Board of Trustees; Henry S. Dulaney, another former president 
of the board; and Lulie P. Hooper, '96, a powerful force in alumnae affairs and a 
trustee and benefactor of the College. On April 10, 1950, President Kraushaar 
informed the Executive Committee that, following a conference and correspon- 
dence with Mrs. Guth, "it seemed advisable to postpone the naming of a build- 
ing for ex-President Guth until a more appropriate building had been con- 
structed on the campus." (According to contemporary gossip, Mrs. Guth 
thought that naming a women's dormitory for a man was "not decent.") It was 
not until May 6, 1957, that the Executive Committee voted to name Residence 
Hall No. 2 Anna Heubeck Hall. 

22. Mr. John L. Seaton of Maplewood, New Jersey, visited the College on 
April I, 1951, on behalf of the Kresge Foundation. (Exec. Comm. mins.. May 

262 18,1951.) 



Z3- The minutes of the Executive Committee meeting on February ii, 1951, Notes to Pages 7}- 

state that the Kresge grant of $250,000 had been approved, but there were 
complications to be worked out: Goucher was to raise its matching sum of 
$2.50,000 by December 3 1, 1 95 2; the Hoffberger family, on the other hand, was 
planning to pay its grant of $250,000 over a nine-year period. The minutes of 
March 3 indicate that the Kresge Foundation refused to accept Hoffberger 
pledges as a matching sum and insisted on new cash. President Kraushaar 
agreed to try to reconcile the family differences. On March 10 Dr. Kraushaar 
informed the Executive Committee that Mr. Kresge refused to budge: the Col- 
lege would have to raise $250,000. The Executive Committee responded by 
appointing a Steering Committee to lay plans immediately "for a solicitation of 
funds this spring." 

24. President Kraushaar informed the Executive Committee on January 1 2, 
1953, that he had sent to the Kresge Foundation an auditor's report showing 
that the College had raised $263,000 to match the Kresge grant of $250,000. 

25. On September 18, 1950, President Kraushaar informed the Executive 
Committee that the post office and business office had been installed in Robin- 
son House with the College bank and a central switchboard with nine trunk 
lines; Mary Fisher now had a snack bar and an office for laundry and dry 
cleaning. Moreover, Van Meter Hall's parking lot was finished, and classroom 
furniture and equipment had all come from Goucher Hall. The College had 
awarded a contract for a greenhouse and had installed an automatic lighting 
system on the campus. All this had taken place during the summer of 1950. 

26. President Kraushaar informed the Executive Committee on September 
21, 1953, that through the influence of Dr. Helen Dodson, '27, the Yerkes 
Observatory proposed to install a six-inch refractor telescope on an equatorial 
mount in the dome of the new science building at a cost of approximately 
$1,500. The committee accepted this generous offer and proposed to name the 
instrument the Lewis telescope in honor of Dr. Florence Lewis, professor emer- 
itus of mathematics {1908- 1947). 

27. The original agreement with the Hoffberger family stipulated that the 
science building would be named the Hoffberger Hall of Science. On June 9, 
1953, the Executive Committee rescinded its earlier action naming the original 
unit of the science building the Lilian Welsh Laboratory and voted instead to 
name the new gymnasium Lilian Welsh Hall. At the same meeting the committee 
awarded to William T. Lyons, Inc. a $436,000 contract for construction of the 
gymnasium. On June 29, 1953, President Kraushaar informed the Executive 
Committee that the Hoffberger family had agreed to change the name of the 
science building to the Hoffberger Science Building rather than Hoffberger Hall 
of Science. 



Chapter 7. Completing the Campus: The Final Stage 

1. Exec. Comm. mins., December 21, i953- 

2. The Executive Committee voted on October 6, 1952, to name South 
House of Froelicher Hall Turtle House in honor of Charlotte Tuttle Hampton, 
'9 5 , a recent benefactor of the College. (The name Hampton House was rejected 
to avoid confusion with the College's historic neighbor to the north.) Alcock 
House, as we have seen, had been named in 1 950. When the Executive Commit- 
tee finally named Froelicher Hall's West House for Katherine Jeanne Gallagher, 
professor of history ( 1 9 1 5 -4 8 ), on May 6, 1 9 5 7, the roster of Mary Fisher and 
Froelicher houses was complete. 

3. Exec. Comm. mins., September 14, 1953- 

4. Ibid., September 20, 1954. 

5. Trustee mins., February i8, 1956. 



Notes to Pages 76-8^ 6. Exec. Comm. mins., August 20, 1956. 

7. Ibid., May 2.5, 1953. 

8. Ibid., June 25, 1956. 

9. Trustee mins., October 19, 1957. Mr. Sasaki had been approved by the 
Executive Committee on February 11, 1957, as consultant and site planner for 
the campus. 

10. Exec. Comm. mins.. May 17, 1954. 

11. Ibid., May 22, 1961. 

12. Ibid., November i, 1954. 

13. Ibid., February 6, 1956. 

14. Ibid., September 8, 1958. 

15. Trustee mins., October 22, 1955. 

16. Ibid., February 18, 1956; Exec. Comm. mins., February 27, 1956. 

17. Exec. Comm. mins., June 18 and October 8, 1956; April 15, 1957. 

18. Ibid., August 20, 1956. 

19. Ibid., September lo, 1956. 

20. Ibid., November 18, 1957. 

21. The undated written commentary, "Objectives and summary of the 
Plan," which accompanies the drawings and completes the plan, postdates this 
meeting of the Executive Committee; hence, the full plan must have appeared in 
early 1958. 

22. At present, the Russian section of the Goucher Modern Languages De- 
partment serves not only the needs of Goucher students, but also those of the 
Johns Hopkins University; the Goucher faculty members hold joint appoint- 
ments with the University, which contributes to their support. 

23. Trustee mins., February 28, 1959. 

24. Ibid., June 13, 1959. 

25. Ibid., October 23, 1954; Exec. Comm. mins., December 13, 1954. Pietro 
Belluschi was dean emeritus of the School of Architecture and Planning at the 
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

26. Exec. Comm. mins., March 16, 1959. 

27. Ibid., May 18 and June i, 1959. 

28. Ibid., October 21, 1963. 

29. Trustee mins., October 12, 1963. 

30. Exec. Comm. mins., March 9 and August 10, 1959. 

31. Ibid., November 26, 1962. 

32. Ibid., October 24, 1964. 

33. Ibid., April 13, 1959. 

34. Ibid., June 6, i960. 

35. Ibid., September 26, i960. 

36. Ibid., February 13 and March 13, 1961. 

37. Ibid., March 4 and April 29, 1963; November 9, 1964. 

38. Ibid., August 10, 1959. 

39. The planned location of the Health Center shifted several times before 
the facility finally reached its present site as a separate building. 

40. Trustee mins., June 11, i960. 

41. Exec. Comm. mins., November 7, i960. 

42. Ibid., January 30, 1961. 

43. Ibid., October 16, 1961; April 2, 1962. 

44. Ibid., April 30, 1962. On September 5, 1962, the committee authorized a 
contract for stage two of Stimson Hall at an estimated cost of $543,600. In the 
same month, stage one was completed in time for the opening of College. (Ibid., 
Octobers, 1962.) 

45. Ibid., October 1 5, 1962. Lewis House was occupied in the fall of 1 964. 
(Trustee mins., October 24, 1964.) 

264 46. Trustee mins., May 15, 1965. 



47- Exec. Comm. mins., February 15,1960. Notes to Pages 8^-90 

48. Ibid., May 9, i960; April 16, 1962.. 

49. Ibid., January 7, 1963. 

50. Trustee mins., October 24, 1964. 

51. During the thirties the College had given an option to buy Bennett Hall 
and later forgot about it. The option was exercised shortly after the Second 
World War, and Goucher suddenly found itself without a gymnasium. 

52. On October 9, 1950, President Kraushaar called to the Executive Com- 
mittee's attention the Physical Education Department's desperate need for facili- 
ties. The committee voted to duplicate the current service building at a cost of 
$17,000 for the temporary use of the Physical Education Department "while 
plans are being pushed for the construction of a permanent gymnasium." 

53. President Kraushaar took the plunge clad in a business suit, but if Miss 
von Borries appeared to him "fully clothed," it was probably because she was 
wearing a vintage (circa 1910) bathing suit with a slightly younger Goucher 
tanksuit underneath. The Board of Trustees voted on May 21, 1 966, to name the 
new swimming pool for Eline von Borries. 

54. Exec. Comm. mins., January 8 and October 8, 1962. At the latter meet- 
ing President Kraushaar noted that the College Center and the Health Center 
were occupied in part, though not yet completed, and that the language labora- 
tory was in the process of moving from Mary Fisher Hall to space in the library 
vacated by the Bookstore, then in the College Center. 

55. Ibid., October 8, 1962. 

56. The Plant Laboratory was originally built in 1951. 

57. Exec. Comm. mins., April 18, 1966. 



Chapter 8. Goucher's Remarkable Real Estate Transactions 

1. When President Kraushaar reported to the trustee Executive Committee 
on December 17, 19 51, that he had received a verbal offer to buy Goucher 
House, the committee voted to accept the offer and provide adequate quarters 
on the Towson campus for the Alumnae Association, which was then occupying 
the building. (The students who had previously lived there had already moved 
out to the Towson campus.) 

2. "Master Plan for the Towson Campus." 

3. On June 13, 1959, Mr. Eney informed a joint meetmg of the Boards of 
Trustees and Overseers that the Towson Plaza Shopping Center had opened on 
May 13, with rentals complete except for some office space. Annual income 
from the shopping center was $140,000 in the early years of its operation. 

4. Exec. Comm. mins., September 21, 1953. 

5. President Kraushaar reported to the Executive Committee on May 26, 
1952, that the Towson Methodist Church was interested in purchasing four to 
five acres of tract on which to build a new church. On February z, 1953, the 
committee offered the Methodists "not less than five acres" of land at $7,000 an 
acre. A week later, on February 9, the committee reduced the price by selling six 
acres for $3 5,000, since the buyer was a church. The committee learned on June 
25, 1956, that this sale had finally been completed. Eight years later, on April 
20, 1964, the committee approved the sale of slightly over ten additional acres to 
the Towson Methodist Church for $40,000. 

6. The Executive Committee approved the current site of the branch of the 
Peabody Institute on March 18, 1957, and approved the lease on March 3, 
1958. The lease gave the Peabody Institute the use of the land for fifty years 
(February 1,1958 to January 31, 2008,) with the option to renew for twenty-five 
additional years. The annual rent for the first fifty years was $1,250 net, Pea- 
body being responsible for all taxes and other expenses that might be incurred. 2.6 j 



Notes to Pages 90-103 In the event that Peabody exercised its option to renew the lease for an addition- 
al twenty-five years, the rent would be adjusted to reflect the difference between 
the U.S. Bureau of Labor Consumer Price Index for calendar 1957 and the 
average of the Consumer Price Indices for the five years prior to the expiration of 
the original lease. 

7. Exec. Comm. mins., February i, 1953. 

8. As we have seen, the original gateway and entrance road were located 
several hundred yards directly north of their current location opposite 
Locustvale Road; the first entrance had originated as a roadway cut for con- 
struction vehicles because it provided the most direct route to the first building 
sites. The architectural plan of the campus had always envisaged a more south- 
erly entrance from Dulaney Valley Road. 

9. "Master Plan for the Towson Campus." 



Chapter 9. Faculty, Students, and Curriculum (1948-1967) 



I. Continuity in the Department of Modern Languages resembles that of the 
Art Department and also stems from Professor Hans Froelicher, whose first tide 
was associate professor of French language and literature. When the College 
celebrated its one hundredth year of teaching in 1988, the French section 
boasted that three of its members had collectively spanned ninety-nine of these 
first one hundred years. The sequence involved Professors Froelicher, Seibert, 
and Thormann; the only year in which none of the three taught between 1888 
and 1988 was 1959. 

2.. On December 20, 1955, President Kraushaar informed the Executive 
Committee of a grant from the Ford Foundation of $444,400 for faculty salary 
increases. One third of this amount could be used for other purposes if the 
College deemed such use advisable. 

3. Concerning the admission of black students, see chapter 11. 

4. The A course had originated in a program worked out jointly by Goucher 
and Western High School; it anticipated the Advanced Placement Program of 
the College Entrance Examination Board, which the Faculty approved on Janu- 
ary iz, 1957. 

5. In 1949-50 Goucher followed another national trend by requiring the 
aptitude and achievement tests of the College Entrance Examination Board for 
admission to the College. According to President Kraushaar, "we made this 
decision with the enthusiastic approval of Mary Ross Flowers, who had been 
appointed to the office of Director of Admissions in 1949. For the first time in 
some years we had a better measure of the caliber of the entering students whom 
we had accepted and who had accepted the College. The point was not to put 
our sole reliance on the College Board test scores, but to use them along with 
other data to bring in a class that we felt was suitable to the level and kind of 
academic program Goucher was offering." 

6. A new grant of $72,000 in 1953 replenished the first grant made in 1951. 
(Exec. Comm. mins., February 9, I953-) 

7. President Kraushaar announced to the Board of Trustees on June 13, 
1953, that the graduate program in teacher training, first directed by Professor 
Esther Crane, would begin in the fall. He had already informed the Executive 
Committee (on April 13, 1953) of the Ford Foundation grant of $75,000 for the 
program; on May 2.5 he reported to the committee that the Ford Foundation had 
added $30,000 to the grant, for a total of $105,000, and on February 6, 1956, 
he was able to announce a further grant of $6 1 ,200 which would allow recruit- 
ment of thirty to forty students per year up to i960. By the fall of 1955, all of 
Goucher's teacher education programs were accredited by the State of Maryland 
and, by compact, with some twenty other states (Exec. Comm. mins., Septem- 



ber 19, 1955). On April 2.4, 1961, the Executive Comminee approved, in accor- Notes to Pages loj- 
dance with federal legislation, the admission of a male applicant to the Master's 
degree program, and in 1963 Howard Long was awarded the M.Ed, degree, 
becoming the first male graduate of Goucher College. The graduate program in 
elementary education came to an end in 1975. 

8. The result of the radical overhaul of the curriculum with which Dean 
Emeritus Elizabeth Geen is largely credited is often referred to as the 1958 
curriculum. While this term is convenient, it is somewhat misleading; the curric- 
ular reform began with major revisions of the curriculum of the lower division, 
that is, the freshman and sophomore years. It was this set of changes that was 
introduced in 1958. But the Curriculum Committee did not stop there and 
proceeded to make numerous changes in the curriculum of the upper division 
during the late fifties and early sixties. The redesigned academic program of the 
Kraushaar period is a result of both of these successive sets of changes. 

9. A native of Dallas, Texas, Elizabeth Geen received her A.B. degree from the 
University of California and her A.M. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of 
Iowa. After teaching at Mills College in California, she became Dean of Women 
and Associate Professor of English at Alfred University in 1946. From there she 
came to Goucher as Dean in 1950. 

10. President Kraushaar's views on general education were significantly in- 
fluenced by the postwar general education program at Harvard (see chapter 5). 

11. Jencks and Riesman, The Academic Revolution, p. 498. 

12. The courses were Humanities 1-2, "Introduction to the Arts," and Social 
Sciences 1-2, "Problems in Public Affairs," both introduced in 1952-53, and 
Natural Science 1-2, "Concepts and Methods in the Natural Sciences," intro- 
duced in 1954-55 an'J a year later divided into Biological Science 1-2, "Intro- 
duction to Biological Science," and Physical Science 1-2, "Concepts and Meth- 
ods in Physical Science." 

13. Geen to the author. May 1986. 

14. Geen, "Strengths and Weaknesses of the Goucher Curriculum." 

15. Ibid. 

1 6. No further attempts were made after 1 9 5 7 to create Goucher's own tests, 
though the requirement that students take the College Board Area Tests was not 
actually abolished until 1966. 

17. In 195 1 the language requirement ceased to be a part of the Sophomore 
General Examination and was instead stated in terms of satisfactory completion 
of certain courses. Students beginning a new language now had to complete the 
second half of the intermediate level (four terms); those whom the appropriate 
department initially placed above the beginning offering were required to com- 
plete one literature course beyond the intermediate level (a maximum of four 
terms). 

i8.Ini952-53the College introduced the sacred scriptures requirement for 
the degree. Scriptural knowledge could be demonstrated by completion of one 
appropriate course or by examination. 

19. On March 9, 1963, this was further amended to read: "a total of four 
courses, of which at least one in the biological sciences (including psychology) 
and at least one in the physical sciences (chemistry, mathematics, physics, 
astronomy), with at least one course a laboratory course." 

20. Interestingly, one of the report's positive recommendations was that 
Goucher introduce the field of accounting into the curriculum, not because the 
liberal arts tradition demanded instruction in that area, but because the evalua- 
tion team felt that all educated citizens should have some familiarity with a tool 
that would inevitably have a strong impact on their lives. The corresponding 
recommendation today, of course, is to require all students to demonstrate an 
appropriate degree of proficiency in the use of the computer. 

21. "Report on the Educational Program of the Upper Curriculum." 



Notes to Pages 109-1 16 zi. Ibid. 

2.?. Ibid. 



24. Prior to 1959, honors at graduation had been granted only for work in 
the major. 

2.5. "Report on Educational Program." 

z6. Fac. mins., December 1 1, 1959. 

27. In "President Kraushaar Reports on 19 Years," a reprint (distributed by 
the Development Office) of his report delivered at the January ii, 1967, meeting 
of the governing boards, Dr. Kraushaar wrote: "The development of the formal 
curriculum of the College is the work above all of Dean Elizabeth Geen, who has 
labored ceaselessly to give it an ordered form and character and to develop in the 
student a sense of chartered freedom, the hallmark of a sound educational 
program. ... By working cooperatively with the dean on committees, students 
have gained new insights into how a curriculum is created and administered. 
And beyond these professional achievements, uncounted students remember her 
for her sympathetic counsel and assistance." 

2.8. The Committee on the Future of the College is the subject of chapter 14. 

29. The option of pass-fail did not enter into the computation of the grade- 
point average. 

30. The opportunities stressed in 1949—50 were the junior year in France 
with Sweet Briar College or in Geneva with Smith College. The junior year in 
Munich with Smith appeared in the 1955-56 catalog; in 1958-59 Wayne State 
University had taken over the Munich program, while Smith added Madrid and 
Florence to its Geneva option. The New York University in Paris program 
appeared on the list in 1963-64, and Smith added Paris and Hamburg in 1968— 
69. Beginning in 1970-71 no specific limits were placed on foreign study pro- 
grams other than approval of the dean and the major advisor. Approved foreign 
study was not limited to Europe; on January 8, 1949, the Faculty approved a 
Goucher Summer School in Mexico. 

31. Fac. mins., May 12, 1961. 

32. Ibid. 

33. Ibid., June 18, 1962. 

34. From 1930 to 1933 the Alumnae Association program operated on a no- 
cost or minimal charge basis; reading lists were distributed, and free lectures 
and concerts were presented by volunteers. From 1934 to 1938 Goucher faculty 
taught a series of weekly courses of college caliber for which a nominal fee was 
charged, permitting the program to be self-supporting. Between 1938 and 1948 
adult education was limited to symposia held during reunion, but in 1 948 a gift 
from an alumna made possible the revival of the program, which continued 
throughout the Kraushaar years. 

35. Exec. Comm. mins., June 4, 1962. 

36. Fac. mins., February 10, 1962. 

37. Ibid. 

38. Ibid., May 11, 1963. 

39. Ibid., May 9, 1964. 

40. Ibid., January 8, 1966. 

41. Ibid., November 1 1, 1962. 

42. On April 13, 1963, the Faculty learned that as a result of faculty com- 
ments on the unsuitability of the term non- Western to describe the program, the 
catalog title was to be changed to "Program in Latin American, African, and 
Asian Cultures." 

43. On February 8, 1964, President Kraushaar announced to the Faculty that 
thirteen U.S. colleges had entered into the U.S. -Indian Women's College Ex- 
change Program; Goucher would participate in 1965—66. 



Chapter lo. The Alumnae Fund and the yjth Anniversary Campaign Notes to Pages uS-izj 

1. This conception of the alumnae concerning their relationship or lack of it 
to the College extended at least from the days of President Guth and the 4—2.-1 
Campaign, though its origins may, in fact, antedate that period. In any event, no 
doubt primarily as a result of the depression, but perhaps also because of the 
rather heavy-handed way in which President Guth prevailed on students to 
pledge the very large sum (in contemporary currency) of $421 as a contribution 
to the rebuilding of the College in Towson, the alumnae who had graduated in 
the late twenties and the thirties were disinclined to show great enthusiasm in 
responding to appeals coming from the College. 

2. On May 25, 1985, Ms. Patricia Goldman, chairman of the trustee Devel- 
opment Committee, informed the Board of Trustees of the death of Judge Sarah 
T. Hughes, who had bequeathed to the College the balance of her estate "for 
the use by the Department of Political Science in its program of practical training 
and education in government and politics administered as of this date by the 
Field Politics Center." 

3. Total gifts to the Corporate Support Program for 1954-55 amounted to 
$22,690; the goal for 1956 was set at $40,500 (Exec. Comm. mins., November 
28, 1955). The 75th Anniversary Fund, at the end of 1955, stood at $607,500 
(ibid., December 20, 1955). 

4. The Todds' goal for this endowment was later increased to $500,000 and 
then to $750,000, the amount necessary for a fully endowed faculty chair. In 
December 1972 the Todd professorship became the first fully endowed chair in 
the College. 

5. President Kraushaar informed the Executive Committee of the receipt of 
this grant on October 2, 1961. 

6. On June 13, 1964, the Board of Trustees approved the engagement of 
Marts and Lundy to do a survey to assess the feasibility of beginning a new, small 
campaign, and on May 15, 1965, the Board decided, on the basis of Marts and 
Lundy 's report, to run a campaign for $1,510,000, the proceeds to be used for 
construction of the science lecture hall, the swimming pool, and a small theatre. 

7. The 75th Anniversary Events Committee was composed of faculty, staff, 
trustees, and alumnae. From the faculty and staff: Harry Casey, Jr., Brownlee 
Corrin, Rhoda Dorsey, Alice Falvey [Greif], Helen Funk, Elliott Galkin, Belle 
Otto [Talbot], Olive Quinn, Eleanor Spencer, and Kenneth O. Walker; from the 
trustees and alumnae: Mrs. Charles D. Harris, Mr. Frank Kaufman, Mr. Walter 
Sondheim, Mrs. Saul Schary, Mrs. Robert Wagner, Mrs. Milton C. Whitaker. 

8. His work on this council was one of President Kraushaar's major contribu- 
tions to Baltimore. 

9. Kraushaar, "Report of the President 1958/1960," p. 30. 



Chapter 11. Controversies and Dilemmas 

1. Walker to the author, February 23, 1985. 

2. Nichols to the author, September 10, 1985. 

3. An institution originally established for black students, the former college 
is now Morgan State University. 

4. Exec. Comm. mins., April 4, 1955. On motion of Judge Sarah T. Hughes, 
at the meeting on June 11, the full board voted unanimously to approve the 
recommendation of the Executive Committee. 

5. In the early fifties President Kraushaar played a significant role, as a 
member of the Governor's Commission on Interracial Problems and Relations 
(later named the Commission on Human Relations), in helping to deal with 

problems in the Baltimore schools after their desegregation and in bringing 269 



Notes to Pages 127-129 about the desegregation of department stores, hotels, restaurants, and other 
forms of public accommodation in the state, and in Baltimore in particular. 

6. In October 1954 several Goucher trustees were serving on the Commis- 
sion on Higher Education for the State of Maryland; the Commission was 
planning a program to expand existing state institutions and provide new in- 
stitutions for post-high school education. The question of state aid to private 
institutions was also before the commission. (Trustee mins., October 13, 1954.) 

7. President Kraushaar reported this feeling on the part of the Executive 
Committee to the full board on October 23, I9S4- 

8. The basic inequities that deterred the Executive Committee are not obvi- 
ous to the naked eye, nor did they prevent most of the private colleges in 
Maryland from participating. The program had essentially the same features as 
most such state-sponsored programs, and, according to Mr. Sondheim, the 
basic problem lay, not in the program itself, but in the fact that it was, precisely, 
sponsored by the state. 

9. Trustee mins., October 22, i960. 

10. Dr. Kraushaar's point was that since federal and state governments were 
heavily involved in pouring money into higher education, any institution that 
refused to participate would soon fall far behind its competitors in terms of 
financial resources. Moreover, if an institution did not accept government- 
sponsored research grants, science faculty would soon move to colleges and 
universities that did accept them, and students would enroll in schools that 
accepted government-supported student aid. 

1 1. Public Law 85-864, Title X, sec. looi (f) reads: "No part of any funds 
appropriated or otherwise made available for expenditure under authority of 
this Act shall be used to make payments or loans to any individual unless such 
individual ( i ) has executed and filed with the Commissioner an affidavit that he 
does not believe in, and is not a member of and does not support any organiza- 
tion that believes in, or teaches, the overthrow of the United States Government 
by force or violence or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods, and (2) has 
taken and subscribed to an oath or affirmation in the following form: 'I do 
solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the United 
States of America and will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the 
United States against all its enemies, foreign and domestic' " 

12. The disclaimer affidavit was clearly a product of McCarthyism, a phe- 
nomenon on which Dr. Kraushaar comments: "My arrival at Goucher hap- 
pened to coincide with the onset of what is now known as McCarthyism, that is, 
the accusations made by Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsm when fear of 
Communist infiltration and subversion was very widespread. During the Cold 
War, Senator McCarthy's wild accusations, broadcast by radio and television, of 
Communist infiltration into the State Department and other departments of 
government and into intellectual circles generally, created widespread 
suspicions — usually unfounded — of disloyalty and treason. An atmosphere de- 
veloped in which even a middle-of-the-road liberal could become the object of 
very serious and dangerous accusations. This pervasive public fear reached a 
point at which 1 was even the recipient of anonymous and threatening telephone 
calls." 

13. On February 9, 1959, the Executive Committee agreed to cease par- 
ticipating in the NDEA student loan program, which "contains unsatisfactory 
terms," and President Kraushaar explained the position to the full board on 
June 13. 

14. President Kraushaar informed the Board of Trustees on October 20, 
1962, that the Disclaimer Affidavit had been repealed by Congress, though the 
Oath of Allegiance remained. On November 26 the Executive Committee au- 
thorized the president to make application for loans under Public Law 87-935. 

270 15. More precisely, the criterion that, according to situation ethics, deter- 



mines the legitimacy of a moral decision is whether or not it is motivated by Notes to Pages ii<)-i40 
agape, the term by which the Greeks characterized the highest form of love, the 
love that seeks only the well-being of the loved one. For a full treatment of the 
subject, see Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics, the New Morality (Philadelphia: 
Westminster Press, 1966). 

16. On December zi, 1964, President Kraushaar outlined to the Executive 
Committee the steps the College was taking to counteract adverse criticism of 
the sermon. The trustees endorsed a letter by Bishop Doll of the Episcopal 
Diocese of Maryland that had appeared in the Evening Sun of December zi, 
1964, and the letter from Dr. Kraushaar to the alumnae. President Kraushaar 
was asked to convey to Chaplain Wood the fact that these documents repre- 
sented the position of the College as accepted by the Executive Committee. On 
April 5, 1965, the Executive Committee approved Chaplain Wood's reappoint- 
ment for one year on the grounds that "negligible risks" were outweighed by the 
greater risk of reopening the controversy and damaging his reputation by dis- 
missing him. 

A year after the sex sermon Dr. Wood received and accepted an offer of the 
chaplaincy at Vassar College. Several years later, he developed leukemia and 
died within a matter of months. 



Chapter 12. Student Life in the Kraushaar Era 

1 . Someone should have kept an eye on the sign painter's spelling: at one time 
in the sixties a large sign appeared on the College's service road warning drivers 
that they were about to cross a "bridal path." 

2. For example, the May Queen and her Court appeared for the last time at 
May Fair in 1965. 

3. College food, for instance, continued to be a source of comment, as 
exemplified by an article in the issue of November 3 o, 1 9 5 1 , titled "Breakfast at 
Goucher: Morning Becomes Electrifying." 

4. Weekly, October 29, 1948. 

5. Ibid., May 5, 1951. 

6. Ibid., November 7, 1952. 

7. Fortunately for dramatic purposes, the late afternoon hour was still in 
effect for President Kraushaar's inauguration on May 7, 1949. As he rose to 
speak, a clap of thunder caused some in the audience to take cover, and the new 
president began his remarks by observing: "Even the gods are stirring uneasily 
on this occasion." But just as he finished his address, a momentary break in the 
clouds permitted a ray of sunshine to beam down on the audience — obviously a 
good omen of a kind the gods cannot easily produce when such ceremonies are 
held in the limited and protected confines of today's Kraushaar Auditorium. 

8. Weekly, May 8, 15, zz, and zg, 1959; Exec. Comm. mins.. May 4, 18, and 
^5> 1959- (As we shall see in chapter 16, Goucher finally completed the mar- 
athon and won the "Bowl" a decade later, in 1969.) 

9. Exec. Comm. mins., October 13, 1961 and February zz, 1963. Ultimately, 
the courts found for the students. According to Dean Emeritus of Students 
Martha A. Nichols, it was easy to identify a Goucher student in a sit-in: she was 
the one carrying a bag with her books to study in jail. Indeed, social activism and 
academic demands were often in conflict. Dean Nichols recalls a group of stu- 
dents who were being held in the detaining cell of the Baltimore City jail who 
requested that the dean of students visit them and that she bring the necessary 
books to allow one of the detainees to study for an upcoming quiz. Another 
student's only concern was that the administration remember that she was 
twenty-one and not notify her parents, since her father was, she said, "a conser- 
vative with a bad heart." 



10. Ibid., May zi, 1967. 

11. Weekly, October i, 1948. 



Chapter 1 ?. Student Activism: The Temper of the Times 

I. Shorter were the administrations of Presidents Noble (three years) and 
Hersey (four years); longer were those of President Guth (sixteen years), Presi- 
dents Goucher and Robertson (eighteen years each), and President Kraushaar 
(nineteen years). President Dorsey completed the first twelve years of her contin- 
uing administration at the end of academic year 1984-85. 

z. Dr. Perry, a native of Powaton, Virginia, received his A.B. degree at the 
University of Virginia and his A.M. and Ph.D. degrees in English at Harvard 
University. After teaching at the University of Virginia from 1947-5 1, Dr. Perry 
went to Washington and Lee University, rising from assistant professor to pro- 
fessor of English and chairman of the department before returning in i960 to 
the University of Virginia as professor of English and dean of admissions. It was 
from his alma mater that he moved to Goucher as president in 1967. 

3. Obear, "Student Activism in the Sixties," p. iz. 

4. Ibid., pp. 13-14. 

5. Ibid., p. 14. 

6. The reader may recall President Kraushaar's distress over the Goucher 
Weekly's harsh statements concerning the College in the mid-sixties, not to 
mention the newspaper's attacks on the administration. 

7. The term direct action referred to sit-ins, demonstrations and other ac- 
tivities that might be technically illegal. 

8. "Student Activism in the Sixties," pp. 17-18. 

9. Ibid., pp. 18—19. 

10. This principle was not unquestioned: "The idea of self-government in 
communities whose members all expect to be gone in a couple of years may well 
be unworkable. Lacking a deep stake in the future of the community as a whole, 
students naturally have a disproportionate interest in protecting their civil liber- 
ties as against meeting their civic responsibilities." (The Academic Revolution, 
P- 57)- 

I I . Even when most intent on upsetting the rules, Goucher students often 
betrayed a reluctance to work outside them — a paradox illustrated by the un- 
dergraduate who approached Dean of Students Martha Nichols and announced 
that she would like to "schedule a riot." (Dean Nichols asked her if she would 
need the public address system.) 

12. "Student Activism in the Sixties," p. iz. 

13. Ibid., p. Z3-Z4. 

14. Ibid., p. zz. 

15. Miles, The Radical Probe: The Logic of Student Rebellion, pp. Z58-59. 

16. Exec. Comm. mins., October 9, 1967. The Faculty approved the self- 
scheduling of examinations (with certain restrictions) on October 14, 1967. 

17. Weekly, January z6, 1968. 

18. Ibid., February 16, 1968. 

19. The moving memorial service for Dr. King that filled Kraushaar Au- 
ditorium to overflowing brought the College together in a manner not generally 
characteristic of those divisive times. 

zo. Weekly, April z6, 1968. When the Field Politics Center held its mock 
election in November 1 968, Humphrey won with 3 z6 votes to 84 for Nixon and 
4 for Wallace (ibid., November 8, 1968). 

zi. Ibid., May 17, 1968. The Committee on the Future of the College is the 
subject of chapter 14. 

zz. Exec. Comm. mins., September Z3, 1968. 



23- The hourly-wage earners did unionize later on, with serious conse- Notes to Pages 1^^-160 
quences for the budget — a matter taken up in chapters 1 5 and 20. 

24. In response, the President's Council circulated a statement to faculty 
members suggesting guidelines covering both freedoms and responsibilities of 
the faculty; faculty members tended to interpret the guidelines variously in 
accordance with their own political positions. 

25. It should be noted, however, that at Goucher, like most similar academic 
institutions, the percentage of true radicals, as opposed to liberal activists, was 
very small. According to Michael Miles {The Radical Probe, p. 17,) "The evi- 
dence suggests that 10 percent at a minimum of the student population of elite 
universities may be aligned with, if not continuously active in, the radical move- 
ment in advance of any particular 'contagion of excitement.' " Miles notes that 
this figure can be reduced by "drowning" the movement in the total student 
population of the United States, including denominational institutions, military 
academies, and so on, "but even 2percentof the total constitutes the formidable 
number of 150,000 radical constituents." At colleges of Goucher's size the 
radical population was probably no more than 5 percent of the total, though 
many more moderate dissenters often participated in demonstrations arising 
from issues of broad local or national interest. 

26. Weekly, May 2, 1969. 

27. The principal founder and editor of Echo, Carol L. Krugman '70, was 
Goucher's Centennial Commencement speaker in 1985. 

28. It was Mr. Matilla's motion in support of the petition, not the petition 
itself, that was tabled at the Faculty meeting on May 10. 

29. Weekly, May 23, 1969. 

30. Gail Anderson, president of the senior class, led the procession to the 
chapel, where the students' honors convocation began with the singing of the 
hymn "Once to Every Man and Nation." A prayer, written and read by Donna 
Prouty, followed. The awards and prizes were presented by Ms. Anderson, who 
also honored the seniors elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Barbara Patterson recited 
"all Ignorance toboggins into know" by e. e. cummings, the yearbook was 
presented to the senior class by its editor, Dianne Schwab, and the convocation 
concluded with a closing benediction read by Nancy Hall and the hymn "O 
God, Our Help in Ages Past." Meanwhile, the official honors convocation 
proceeded as usual despite the absence of many of the honorees. 

31. Ibid., September 26, 1969; Exec. Comm. mins., October 6, 1969. 

32. Trustee mins., October 25, 1969. 

33. Weekly, May 8, 1970. 

34. Fac. mins., May 16, 1970. 

35. The concert program, played by the Baltimore Chamber Orchestra and 
sung by the Goucher Glee Club and Chapel Choir with soloists from the com- 
munity and the College, consisted of works appropriate to a time of crisis: The 
National Anthem; "We Shall Overcome"; Copland's "A Lincoln Portrait"; 
Hindemith's "Trauermusik" ("in memory of the victims at Kent State Univer- 
sity, Jackson State College, and all who have died for democracy"); Men- 
delssohn's Piano Concerto No. i; "Deep River"; Handel's "Vouchsafe, O 
Lord" from "Dettingen Te Deum"; and Copland's "Simple Gifts." A free-will 
offering was collected by Students' Organization to support non-partisan ac- 
tivities in behalf of peace. 

36. While the College addressed all these points, the last one has so far met 
with little success, largely because the demand on the part of many academic 
institutions for black faculty and administrative personnel still far exceeds the 
supply. 

37. This has been characteristic of undergraduates since the mid-seventies. 

38. Exec. Comm. mins., January 10, 1972. 

39. Trustee mins., January 27, 1973. 273 



Notes to Pages i6i-i6y Chapter 14. The Committee on the Future of the College 

1 . "Report of the Committee on the Future of the College" (hereafter cited as 
CFC report), p. i. 

2. Faculty members elected to the committee were Dorothy L. Bernstein, 
professor of mathematics; Noel J. J. Farley, associate professor of economics; 
and William L. Hedges, professor of English. The trustees were represented by 
H. Vernon Eney, Walter Sondheim, Jr., and Mary Frances P. Wagley; Mr. Eney 
was later replaced by H. Barksdale Brown, though Mr. Eney remained as coun- 
sel to the committee. The president appointed from the administration Dean 
Rhoda M. Dorsey, Dean of Students Martha A. Nichols, and Harry J. Casey, vice 
president-finance. Student members were Barbara J. Safriet "69, president of the 
Students' Organization for 1969-69, who was succeeded in her ex officio posi- 
tion by Lucretia M. Gibbs '70, president of the Students' Organization for 
1969-70; Marilyn J. Morton '70; Clare O'Connor '70; and Marilyn Sternlicht 
'69. Representing the alumnae were Emma Robertson Richardson '34, Eleanor 
Rand Wilner '59 (succeeded by Evelyn Dyke Schroedl '62,) and Winifred Leist 
Wilson '43, alumnae director. 

3. CFC report, p. 2. 

4. This abbreviation for "Committee on the Future of the College" will be 
used throughout the rest of this chapter. 

5. CFC report, p. 2; Exec. Comm. mins., September 22, 1969. 

6. CFC report, pp. 5-6. 

7. Ibid., p. 10. In assessing the age of this particular perception of weakness, it 
is instructive to consider the following statement, which appeared in the 1888 
Prospectus announcing the opening of The Woman's College of Baltimore City: 
"The prevailing system is regarded as open to serious objection in requiring 
precisely the same amount of work to be done by all students, within the same 
time, under penalty of loss of class standing. This stimulates students of delicate 
constitution to over-exertion, and encourages older and maturer students from 
postponing graduation in order to pursue, at certain points, parallel and il- 
lustrative courses of reading." Clearly, John B. Van Meter would have felt very 
much at home if he had had an opportunity to serve on the Subcommittee on the 
Academic Program in 1969. 

8. Ibid. 

9. Ibid., p. II. 

10. Ibid., p. 12. 

11. Ibid., p. 13. The term relevance irritated some members of the faculty 
because it had become an overused and rarely defined battlecry in contemporary 
discussions of educational matters. "Relevant to whatf" was a question fre- 
quently asked by faculty members, many of whom considered queries about the 
educational relevance of music or history to be irrelevant, if not meaningless. 

12. Ibid., p. 17. 

13. Ibid., p. 14. 

14. Ibid., p. 16. (Once again, the College's 1888 Prospectus comes to mind; 
the reader may also recall the student reactions to the 1934 New Plan, e.g., "I 
feel rather like a high school girl, having classes on the same subject on consecu- 
tive days.") 

15. Trustee mins., October 31, 1970. 

16. Ibid., October 25, 1969. 

17. CFC report, p. 25. 

18. Ibid. 

19. Faculty mins., January 27, 1970. 

20. Ibid. 

21. CFC report, p. 28. 

274 22. The list of January-term courses for 1971 included such offerings as 



"Aggression and Ecology," "Alexander the Great," "Chemistry and Physics Notes to Pages i6j-i-j<) 
Applied: Nuts and Bolts of Contemporary Society," "Classical Mythology," 
"The Fairy Tale," and "Gilbert and Sullivan." The "Nuts and Bolts" course, as 
it was generally called, received national publicity and later became the basis of a 
book by Professors James L. A. Webb and Barton L. Houseman. 

23. Thus the Faculty complied fully with the student petition it had received 
on May 10, i969,exceptthat it did not do so in time to benefit the class of 1969. 

2.4. For purposes of carrying out President Perry's directive three students and 
three faculty members jomed the Subcommittee on the College as a Community, 
responsible for making recommendations concerning the governance of the 
College. The three additional students were Lucretia M. Gibbs '70, just elected 
president of the Students' Organization for 1969-70; Stephanie I. Thinglestad 
'70, vice president of the Students" Organization for 1969-70; and Susan M. 
Sachs '72. The new faculty members were Jerome I. Cooperman, assistant 
professor of political science; Joseph Morton, assistant professor of philosophy; 
and Eli Velder, associate professor of education. 

25. CFC report, pp. 59—60. 

26. Trustee mins., January 27, 1973. 

27. Exec. Comm. mins., September 17, 1973. 



Chapter 75. Major Financial Problems: Reality versus Mirage 

1 . Priorities for Action: Final Report of the Carnegie Commission on Higher 
Education, p. 4. 

2. Cheit, The New Depression, p. ix. 

3. Ibid., p. xi. 

4. Ibid., p. xviii. 

5. Ibid., p. I. See also the two-page partial transcript and summary of a 
round-table discussion by eleven college presidents about their financial difficul- 
ties in the New York Times, July 13, 1970. 

6. Cheit, The New Depression, p. 3. To think that Goucher's size or reputa- 
tion caused its problems is to disregard President Pusey's report on Harvard for 
1968-69, which announced that, in contrast to previous years. Harvard faced 
"a serious financial situation" (ibid.), not as serious as Goucher's, but perhaps 
some solace to anyone who may have regarded this institution's problems as 
unique or limited to small liberal arts colleges. 

7. Ibid., p. 10. 

8. Ibid., p. 11. 

9. The enrollment decline is displayed in table 8. 

10. Cheit, The New Depression, p. 6. 

11. This list of income sources and areas of expenditure is by no means 
complete; for the sake of simplicity, only those categories that bear direcdy on 
the financial problems of the Perry administration are mentioned. 

1 2. This situation was by no means unique to Goucher. According to David 
G. Healy, Goucher's vice president for financial affairs since 1983, during the 
new depression no administration found itself able to foresee with even normal 
accuracy the financial response a year in advance, thanks to the magnitude of 
inflation. 

13. Trustee mins., October 25, 1969. 

14. Exec. Comm. mins., January 5, 1970. 

15. Ibid., November 6, 1972. 

16. Trustee mins., October 28, 1967. 

17. Ibid., May 22, 1971. 

i8. As table 7 shows, it was actually more than three times the budgeted 
deficit. 



Notes to Pages j8o-i8fl 19. Trustee mins., January 18, 1969. 

zo. Ibid., May 2.4, 1969. 
zi. Ibid., January 17, 1970. 
i2. Exec. Comm. mins., December 7, 1970. 

23. Ibid., March 22., 1971. 

24. Some reductions were achieved through natural attrition and reduced 
hiring; like most colleges, Goucher regarded major faculty cuts as a last resort. 
Only when the risk of exhausting expendable endowment became too great for 
the trustees to tolerate did the College take the extreme step of terminating the 
positions of tenured faculty, but this point was not reached until shortly after the 
end of the Perry administration. 

25. Exec. Comm. mins., October 12, 1970. The administration and the 
board had in fact anticipated this step but had chosen not to oppose it, on the 
grounds that such a development was inevitable in the long run and that graceful 
acceptance would encourage loyalty and diminish possible future loss of morale 
on the part of the staff. 

26. Trustee mins., May 24, 1969. 

27. Ibid. 

28. The gifts had never been lavish; frequently they took the form of a book. 

29. Exec. Comm. mins., November 6, 1972. President Perry had informed 
the Board of Trustees on May 20, 1972, that Vice President Harry Casey had 
resigned in order to devote himself to the growing of grapes for the future 
production of wme. He was later succeeded by Vice President Barnett. 

30. More recent analyses seem to promise maximum efficiency when a cam- 
pus houses either a smaller or a larger number than one thousand; today, with 
perfect hindsight, we can see that a goal somewhat lower than 1,000 might have 
been wiser. 

31. Exec. Comm. mins., December 27, 1967. 

32. Ibid., January 4, 1971. 

33. Trustee mins., May 24, 1969. 

34. Ibid., October 23,1971. 

35. Ibid., October 25, 1969. 

36. The reader may recall the following words from chapter 2: "The Faculty 
well knew that Goucher was not alone in its plight. According to President 
Robertson, fewer than forty colleges and universities had balanced their 1932— 
3 3 budgets without either reducing salaries or incurring a deficit, and Goucher 
was not one of the happy few." 

37. Cuts did occur, but they came shortly after the conclusion of the Perry 
administration. 

?8. Faculty mins., November 10, 1971; Trustee mins., January 15, 1972. 

39. Mr. Todd, who had recently died, bequeathed 40 percent of his residuary 
estate to the College; the Todds had already established the first fully endowed 
chair and had contributed, to date, over $750,000. 

40. Trustee mins., January 16, 1971. 

41. At the end of the John Franklin Goucher administration (1890— 1908) 
the College was in such desperate financial straits that President Goucher's 
successor, Eugene A. Noble (1908-1 1) resigned after three years, having pro- 
claimed Goucher College "a financial experiment that has failed." As we have 
seen, Goucher was saved by President Guth, but went from a high point in the 
twenties in both enrollment and resources to near disaster during the depres- 
sion. President Kraushaar profited from the academic prosperity of the fifties 
and early sixties to build the institution to new heights, but President Perry faced 
an economy in which a number of academic institutions perished. 



Chapter 16. A final Overview of the Perry Years Notes to Pages 191-202 

I. Weekly, October 11, 1968. 

z. Exec. Comm. mins., March 10, 1969. 

3. Ibid., September 8, 1969. 

4. Trustee mins., October 25, 1969. 

5. Exec. Comm. mins., September 25, 1967. 

6. Ibid., October 9, 1967. 

7. Trustee mins., January 20, 1968. 

8. One event worthy of celebration was the announcement that the Middle 
States Association had reaffirmed Goucher's accreditation without qualification 
(ibid.. May 20, 1968). 

9. A model of the proposed building was eventually produced, but when it 
became apparent that sufficient funds to complete actual construction were not 
in prospect, the project was laid aside. 

10. Exec. Comm. mins., October 26, 1970; Trustee mins., January 16, 1971. 



Chapter ly. A New President Faces Old Challenges fi 973-1 9 79J 

1. Aher gTaduatingmagna cum laude iromSmith College, Dr. Dorsey earned 
B.A. and M.A. degrees from Newnham College, Cambridge, England, and the 
Ph.D. in history from the University of Minnesota. From there she came to 
Goucher as instructor in history in 1954, receiving promotions to the ranks of 
assistant professor in 1957, associate professor in 1962, and professor in 1965. 
From 1962 to 1965 she served as assistant dean, and in 1968 she was elected 
dean and vice president, a position she occupied until her appointment as acting 
president in 1973 and her election to the presidency in 1974. 

2. Fac. mins., September 4, 1973. 

3. Trustee mins., October 13, 1973. 

4. The earlier ob|ective had been to insure the safety of the invested funds at 
the expense of a smaller yield. 

5. Fac. mins., October 17, 1973. 

6. Exec. Comm. mins., November 20, 1973. 

7. Trustee mins., February 16, 1974. 

8. Curiously, this was exactly the amount of the first and smallest of the five 
Perry administration deficits (1968-69). In short, one more year with such a 
comparatively moderate deficit would exhaust the College's expendable endow- 
ment. 

9. Trustee mins., October 19, 1974. 

10. Ibid., January 11, 1975. 

11. Details of these curricular changes are discussed in chapter 19. 

12. Exec. Comm. mins., February 17, 1975. 

13. Fac. mins., February 19, 1975. 

14. Exec. Comm. mins., April 21, 1975. 

15. Professor Ingrid Y. Bucher (physics) moved to the Department of Mathe- 
matics in 1976, so only four tenured faculty members were actually terminated 
at this time. 

16. Trustee mins.. May 10, 1975. 

17. Ibid., October 23, 1976. 

18. Ibid., May 22, 1976. 

19. Because some staff reductions occurred through natural attrition and 
non-reappointment of non-tenured faculty, the administration's problem was 
that of determining which tenured faculty would not be reappointed. Two of the 
five designated positions were in Classics, and since the Department of Classics 
itself was eliminated and because Professor Bucher was able to move from the 



Notes to Pages zoz-209 vacated position in Physics to one in Mathematics, the question of choice arose 
only in the fields of French and German. 

2.0. The five criteria are mastery of subject, teaching excellence, evidence of 
research and/or creativity, service to the College, and professional service to the 
community. 

21. Exec. Comm. mins., May 19, 1975. 

zz. Trustee mins.. May zz, 1976. At the same meeting of the board, the 
Finance Committee announced its approval of an early retirement plan which 
would realize a saving for the College. Vice President Palmer outlined for the 
Executive Committee, on October 11, 1976, the plan allowing full-time faculty 
and professional staff to retire at age sixty-two with the same pension benefits 
they would have had if they had retired at age sixty-five. Projections indicated 
that the plan would result in substantial net savings to the College. The Execu- 
tive Committee approved the proposal. 

23. Ibid., October 23, 1976; January 15 and June 18, 1977; Exec. Comm. 
mins., February 7 and June 13, 1977. 

14. Mr. Natunewicz's suit was based on a claim that he had no formal 
notification of his termination until November 1975, not having received an 
official letter on the subject by June 30. There was, however, evidence that he 
knew of his termination prior to June 30. (Exec. Comm. mins., November zz 
and December 6, 1976.) 

25. Ibid., June 13, 1977; Trustee mins., June 18, 1977. 

26. Trustee mins., October 23, 1976. 

27. Exec. Comm. mins., April 18, 1977. 

28. Transcript of the Proceedings, United States Distria Court for the Dis- 
trict of Maryland, Hertha H. Krotkoffv. Gaucher College, Case No. 76-877-W 
(Civil Action), Baltimore, July 12, 1977, p. 1549. 

29. Ibid., p. 1556. 

30. Ibid., p. 1558. 

31. Ibid., p. 1560-61. 

32. Ibid., p. 1562. 

33. Exec. Comm. mins., April 18, June 13, and July 26, 1977; October 23, 
1978; Trustee mins., June 18 and October 8, 1977. 

34. Exec. Comm. mins., February 7, 1977- 

35. Ibid., January 3, 1978. 

36. Trustee mins., June 7, 1978. 

37. Ibid., February 16, 1974- 

38. The Board of Trustees concurred on May 10, 1975. 

39. Exec. Comm. mins., November zz, 1976; January 3, 1978. 

40. Ibid., September iz, 1977. 

41. Trustee mins., October 8, 1977; September 30, 1978; September 29, 
1979- 

42. Ibid., September 30, 1978; September 29, 1979. 

43. Exec. Comm. mins., November 7, 1977. Professor Frederic O. Musser 
served on a part-time basis as assistant to the president from 1977 to 1980. 



Chapter 18. Other Developments in the Life of the College ('1973-1979^ 

1 . Because curricular innovations were so extensive in the Dorsey years, they 
will be treated separately in chapter 19. 

2. Trustee mins., April 15, 1974. 

3. Exec. Comm. mins., December i, 1975. 

4. Trustee mins., October 23, 1976. 

5. "Report of the Visiting Team of the Commission on Higher Education." 

6. Exec. Comm. mins., January 7, 1974. 



7. The same suggestion favoring faculty representation on the board was Notes to Pages 109-21I 
raised in another letter to Mr. DeVries, dated May 20, 1980, and signed by the 

chairmen of the three Faculties and Professor Brooke Peirce, chairman pro 
tempore of an unofficial faculty meeting which had requested that such a letter 
be sent. The trustee response remained unchanged. 

8. Exec. Comm. mins., April i, 1974. 

9. Ibid., October 23, 1978. 

10. For full details on the buildings and their 1978 owners see table 3. 

11. Exec. Comm. mins., April 23 and May 7, 1979. 

12. Weekly, March 6, 1980. 

13. In 1985 the Weekly staff decided to abandon the slash, even though the 
paper still appeared only twice a month, but later they concluded that a more 
distinctive name was called for, and Weekly became The Quindecim, the Latin 
word for fifteen, suggesting the number of days between issues. 

14. Trustee mins., September 30, 1978. 

15. Exec. Comm. mins., October 23, 1978; April 23, 1979. The health fee 
declined from $75 in 1979-80 to $60 in 1980-81. 

16. Trustee mins., June 18, 1977. 

17. Outcry, September 21, 1973. 

18. Exec. Comm. mins., August 7, 1978. 

19. Chapter 20 recounts the origin, development, and success of the Pearl- 
stone Center. 

20. That the echoes of 1970 had not totally died away is indicated by the 
students' view that the way to promote campus unity was to stage a protest. This 
time, at least, they seem to have been quite right. 

21. Weekly, March 16, 1978. 

22. Ibid. 

23. Ibid. 



Chapter 19. The Gaucher Academic Program (■1973-198JJ 

1 . Minutes of the College Assembly (hereafter cited as Assem. mins.), March 
10, 1975. 

2. Ibid. 

3. Ibid. 

4. Ibid. 

5. Ibid. 

6. Ibid., March 12, 1975. 

7. Similar faculty fears had been expressed as early as 1 9 1 7, when the educa- 
tion major, an obviously career-oriented program, first entered the Goucher 
curriculum. 

8. Trustee mins., October 23, 1976. 

9. Exec. Comm. mins., June 2, 1980. The 1980 committee was chaired by 
Professor Barton Houseman (chemistry) and included Professors Jean Baker 
(history), Virginia Dersch (sociology), William Johnson (biological sciences), 
Barry Knower (performing arts), Elaine Koppelman (mathematics), Wolfgang 
Thormann (modern languages), Eli Velder (education) and Fred White (En- 
glish), as well as Barbara Boerner, director of admissions, and Edward Duggan, 
director of career development. 

10. On February 9, 1980, Dean Billet had observed to the Board of Trustees 
that by 1995, high school graduations would be down 42 percent in New York 
State, 37 percent in Pennsylvania, 31 percent in Maryland, and 22 percent in 
Virginia. Trends differed in other parts of the country, but in Goucher's area of 
yield, projections showed a large decrease. Goucher's own projections showed a 
decline of 29 percent in the size of the freshman class between 1979-80 and 



rS-23i 1990-91. The combined impact of high attrition (lo percent) and smaller 
entering classes meant that by 1990-91, the College would have 27 percent 
fewer students, a loss of 239. The administration projected a cumulative deficit 
of over $zo,ooo,ooo. 

11. From approximately 1970 to 1985, in an effort to increase enrollments, 
admissions publications stressed the virtues of Goucher's being a college for 
women; prior to that time, proponents of the feminist position had not generally 
received strong support from the faculty as a whole. 

12. Exec. Comm. mins., June 2, 1980. 

13. The suggestion concerning freshman advising had already been ad- 
dressed in 1978, when the first-year program was introduced; the second sug- 
gestion was implemented by Dr. Edward Duggan, director of career develop- 
ment since 1979, whose program makes important use of faculty advice. 

14. The Strategic Plan, discussed in chapter 20, seems to indicate the trustees' 
sharing of the Academic Planning Committee's view. 

15. Exec. Comm. mins., June 2, 1980. 

16. Ibid. 

17. Ibid. 

18. "Report of the Academic Planning Committee," May 2, 1980. 

19. Hedges, Cooperman, Koppelman, and Peirce to Dorsey and Billet, May 
29, 1980. 

20. Exec. Comm. mins., June 2, 1980. 

21. Dorsey to Faculty, June 5, 1980. 

22. Exec. Comm. mins., June 23, 1980. 

23. A fifth tenured faculty member was given early retirement. 

24. Trustee mins., June 13, 198 1. 

25. The American Association of University Professors and the Association 
of American Colleges had jointly formulated the 1940 "Statement of Principles 
on Academic Freedom and Tenure," a document endorsed by over one hundred 
other educational organizations and professional societies. The AAUP is the 
traditional body to which to appeal in cases involving alleged infringement of an 
individual's academic freedom. 

26. Exec. Comm. mins., April 12, 1982. The AAUP Committee's report was 
published in the bulletin of the American Association of University Professors: 
"Academic Freedom and Tenure: Goucher College," pp. 13—23. 

27. Trustee mins., June 18, 1983. 

28. Assem. mins., March 20, 1980. 

29. Ibid., May 7, 1981. 

30. The combination major began in 193 1. 

31. Trustee mins., January 17, 1976. 

32. Ibid., November 4, 1978. 

33. Ibid., September 30, 1978. 

34. Exec. Comm. mins., July 27, 1982. 

35. Ibid., September 30, 1978. 

36. Trustee mins., February 16 and October 19, 1974. 

37. Exec. Comm. mins., July 26, 1977. 

38. On June 17, 1978, President Dorsey announced to the Board of Trustees 
a new program, the Women's Management Development Project, financed by a 
grant from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare. The project, she 
said, would train twenty women with both a B.A. degree and volunteer experi- 
ence for leadership capacity in management or supervisory level positions. 

39. Trustee mins., February 17, 1979. 

40. Exec. Comm. mins., October 8, 1979. 

41. Trustee mins., October 1 1, 1980. Goucher II is, essentially, an updated 
version of the Wednesday Program for Continuing Education, which had begun 
under the leadership of Dean Elizabeth Geen in March, 1964; the Wednesday 



Program was designed for women who had withdrawn from college without Notes to Pages i} 1-242 
completing the requirements for the degree. It was seen as a preliminary step 
toward full enrollment in the College. The Wednesday program had been pre- 
ceded by Alumnae Association noncredit programs in adult education dating 
from 1930. 

41. The Post-Baccalaureate Premedical Program is designed for students who 
have completed a bachelor's and/or graduate degree but lack the majority of 
courses needed for entrance to medical school and other health professional 
schools. Seventeen students, twelve women and five men, entered the program in 
June, 1984, and three other students from the Goucher II program joined the 
class in September. The students, a majority of whom are Maryland residents, 
range in age from twenty-two to thirty-three years old. 

43.1 Thess. 5:21. 



Chapter 20. The End of the First Hundred Years (1980-198^) 



I . The campus later celebrated the good news by applauding Mrs. Harris as 
she painted up to the top the green thermometer in the College Center courtyard 
which had been registering the campaign's progress for many months. 

z. Exec. Comm. mins., September 13, 1982. 

3. Ibid., September 12, 1983. 

4. "Report to the Governor's Commission on Excellence m Higher Educa- 
tion," p. 22. 

5. Trustee mins., October 16, 1982. 

6. Ibid., November 30, 1982. 

7. Exec. Comm. mins.. May 5, 1980. 

8. President Dorsey also observed that she had spoken that morning with a 
group of students who, in sympathy with the workers, had been sitting-in 
overnight in her office. 

9. Trustee mins., June 14, 1980. 

10. Exec. Comm. mins., September 8, 1980. 

II. Ibid., October 19, 1981. 

12. Ibid., November 15, 1982. 

13. Ibid. 

14. Trustee mins., June 18, 1983. 

15. Exec. Comm. mins., September 10, 1984. 

16. Trustee mins., October 20, 1984. 

17. Exec. Comm. mins., March 14, 1983. 

18. Trustee mins., October 20, 1984. 

19. Exec. Comm. mins., March 3, 1980. 

20. Ibid., May 10, 1982. The organization of the centennial was the general 
responsibility of a steering committee, whose membership, in addition to Mrs. 
Nichols, included Pat Booker Dalton '58, national events chairman; Judith 
Brigstocke Hundertmark '54, local events chairman; Michele Manes Broadfoot 
'68, memorabilia chairman; Marilyn Southard Warshawsky '68, fund-raising 
chairman; Evelyn Dyke Schroedl '62, historical research and publications chair- 
man; Marianne Ten Eyck, director of student activities/center, student events 
chairman; Rhoda M. Dorsey, president; Harry D. Gotwals, vice president for 
development and public relations; and Jean Horrigan, special projects coordi- 
nator. In addition to the committees chaired by these individuals, there was an 
Academic Program Committee with four subcommittees, one for each of the 
four centennial symposia presented during the year. While the work of most of 
the committees is reflected in the text of this chapter, that of the Historical 
Research and Publications Committee should also be noted: the Summer 1984 
edition of the Goucher Quarterly, vol. 62, no. 4, was, in fact, the pictorial and 



Notes to Pages 2.42.-2.^1 verbal history of the first one hundred years of the College as developed by the 
committee and edited by Joan Abelson — a beautifully designed and colorful 
review of the historical highlights of Goucher's first century. 

ii. Bready, "Up, Up and Away! As Goucher Says Goodbye to Its First Cen- 
tury," p. A 14. 

22. Trustee mins., October 20, 1984. 

23. Exec. Comm. mins., April 8, 1985. 

24. A full account of the restoration process and the installation of the 
windows is found in an article by Carol Lindsley, "Tiffany at Goucher," in the 
Winter issue of the Goucher Quarterly, on pages 8-1 1. 

25. Ruby, "From Promise to Achievement," p. B 8. 

26. Ibid. 



Afterword: The Transition to Coeducation 



I. Assem. mins.. May i, 1986; Fac. mins., April 29, 1986. 
z. Trustee mins.. May 10, 1986. 

3. "Report on Financing Alternatives." 

4. Trustee mins.. May 10, 1986. 



Bibliography 



Unpublished Materials in Gaucher College Archives 

Geen, Elizabeth. "Strengths and Weaknesses of the Goucher Curriculum," 

1953- 
Kraushaar, Otto F. Untitled memoirs, 1982.. 
Maryland Independent College and University Association, "Report to the 

Governor's Commission on Excellence in Higher Education." 
"Master Plan for the Towson Campus" [by Hideo Sasaki], 1958. 
Minutes of the Board of Trustees, Goucher College, 1930-85. Cited in notes as 

Trustee mins. 
Minutes of the College Assembly, Goucher College, 1970—85. Cited in notes as 

Assem. mins. 
Minutes of the Executive Committee, Board of Trustees, Goucher College, 

1930-85. Cited in notes as Exec. Comm. mins. 
Minutes of the Faculty, Goucher College, 1930-85. Cited in notes as Fac. mins. 
"National Service, 1941-45." [Uncatalogued folder.] 
"Report of the Academic Planning Committee," May z, 1980. 
"Report of the Committee on the Future of the College," September 1969. 
"Report of the Visiting Team of the Commission on Higher Education," Middle 

States Association of Colleges and Schools, February 1978. 
"Report on Financing Alternatives," November 14, 192.4, revised January 15, 

1985- 
"Report on the Educational Program of the Upper Curriculum, 1959. 
Transcripts of oral interviews. 



Published Materials 

"Academic Freedom and Tenure: Goucher College." Academe 69 (May-June 

i983):i3-2.3. 
Baker, Ray Stannard. Woodrow Wilson, Life and Letters, vol. 8. New York: 

Doubleday, Doran and Co., 1939. 2.83 



Bready, James H. "Up, Up and Away! As Goucher says Goodbye to Its First 
Century." Baltimore Evening Sun, September 12, 1984, p. A 14. 

Califano, Joseph A., Jr. The Student Revolution: A Global Confrontation. New 
York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1970. 

Cheit, Earl F. The New Depression in Higher Education. Carnegie Commission 
on Higher Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971. 

Finn, Chester E., Jr. Scholars, Dollars, and Bureaucrats. Washington, D.C.: 
Brookings Institution, 1978. 

Fletcher, Joseph. Situation Ethics, the New Morality. Philadelphia: Westmin- 
ster Press, 1966. 

Goucher College Bulletin III, 24, no. 2 (October, 1957). 

Goucher College Weekly (1930-48). 

Goucher Weekly (1948-73; 1975-85). 

Jencks, Christopher, and Riesman, David. The Academic Revolution. Garden 
City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., 1968. 

Knipp, Anna Heubeck, and Thomas, Thaddeus P. The History of Goucher 
College. Baltimore: Goucher College, 1938. 

Kraushaar, Otto F. "President Kraushaar Reports on 19 Years." Reprint. Tow- 
son, Md.: Goucher College Development Office, 1967. 

. "Report of the President 1958/60." Goucher Alumnae Quarterly 39, 

no. 2 (Winter i96i):30 

Lindsley, Carol. "Tiffany at Goucher." Goucher Quarterly 63, no. 2 (Winter 
i985):8-ii. 

Miles, Michael W The Radical Probe: The Logic of Student Rebellion. New 
York: Atheneum, 1973. 

Moment, Gairdner B. "Guth and Academic Freedom." Goucher Quarterly 62, 
no. 4 (Summer I984):i2-i3. 

Obear, Frederick W "Student Activism in the Sixties." In Protest! Student 
Activism in America, edited by Julian Foster and Durward Long. New York: 
William Morrow and Co., 1970. 

Owicry (1973-75). 

Priorities for Action: Final Report of the Carnegie Commission on Higher 
Education. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1973. 

Ruby, Michael. "From Promise to Achievement." Baltimore Messenger, January 
1985, p. B 8. 

United States Code, Title X, sec. looif, Public Law 85-864. 

United States District Court for the District of Maryland. Transcript of Proceed- 
ings, Krotkoff w. Goucher College, Case no. 76-877-W (Civil Action). Bal- 
timore: July 12, 1977. 

Wolk, Ronald A. "Federal Government and Higher Education." In The Ency- 
clopedia of Education, vol. 3, edited by Lee C. Deighton. New York: Mac- 
millan Co. and Free Press, 1971. 



e X 



Abelson, Joan, zSin.zo 

Academic distinction, 9, 17, :io-ii 

Academic Planning Committee (faculty), 
217—21. See also Personnel, reduction 
in 

Academic programs. See College teacher 
preparatory program; Computer sci- 
ence program; Continuing education 
programs; Curriculum; Elementary 
teacher education programs; Graduate 
programs; Non-Western Studies pro- 
gram; Second bachelor's degree pro- 
gram; Study abroad programs 

Academic reorganization, committee on, 
10 

Acheson, Dean, 142 

Activism, student: at Goucher, iii, 140, 
151, 152, 154-60, 175-76; outside 
Goucher, xii-xiii, 149-54 

Admissions: with advanced standing, 9; 
committee on, 13; direaor of, 13; stu- 
dent, 9, 13, 43, IOI-3, 125-27 

Adult education. See Continuing educa- 
tion programs 

Adult education committee (alumnae), 
113, 255n.28, 268n.34 

Advismg, student. See First year program; 
Guidance officers 

Aksyonov, Vassily, 24 1 

Albritton, Sherrod, 113 

Alcock, John, 253n.3 

Alcock House, 253n.3, 262n.20 

Alfheim Hall, 46, 262n.20 

Almae matri, 139 



Alumnae: in Dorsey years, 205, 233, 
245-46, 250; in Kraushaar years, 61- 
62, 69, 75, 80, 118-20, 269n.i; in 
Perry years, 186; in Robertson years, 
6-7, 30-31,48 

Alumnae Association, 31, 76, 113, 118- 
20, 121, 225n.28, 268n.34 

Alumnae Club, Baltimore, 49 

Alumnae Council, 30-31 

Alumnae Fund, 22, 118-20, 186, 238, 
240 

Alumnae Gift Building Fund, 48, 61-62, 
69, 1 19 

Alumnae House, 75-76, 119 

Alumnae House Buildmg Committee, 75 

Alumnae Lodge, 45, 1 19 

American Association of University Pro- 
fessors (AAUP), 122, 203, 222, 254n.7, 
28on.25; Goucher chapter of, 19, 200 

American Council on Education, 19, 203 

American Institute of Architects, 31; Bal- 
timore chapter of, 81 

Anderson, Gail, 157, 273n.30 

Andrews, Mary E., 96 

Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, 181, 
227-28 

Angelou, Maya, 243 

Anna Heubeck Hall, 47, 60, 75, 77-79, 
26on.2, 262n.2i 

Anti-war movement activities: demon- 
strations in Washington, 151, 152, 
153-54, 157-58; moratorium on Viet- 
nam war, 157-58; student strike, 
153-54, 158- See also Baltimore Four, 
trial of 



Architects, Advisory Board of, 24, 2.9, 

31-32,62,79, 80 
Architectural competition, 31-32 
Architecture of Towson campus. See 

Campus, Towson, Master Plan; and 

names of indimdual buildings 
Art department, 9, 19, 79-80, 93-94, 

244 
Arts and Ideas course, 233 
Art Therapy program, 230 
Association of American Colleges, 203 
Auden.W. H., 142 

Bacon, Clara L., 44, 97, 262n.2i 

Bacon House, 84, 97, 98, 262n.2i 

Baker, Jean H., 97 279n.9 

Baker, Mary (Mrs. William G.), 121 

Baldwin, Summerfield, 240, 262n.2i 

Baldwin House, 240, 262n.2i 

Ball, George, 243 

Baltimore Association of Commerce, 8 1 

Baltimore Beltway, 47, 89-90 

Baltimore campus. See Campus, city 

Baltimore County Zoning Commission, 
48-49 

Baltimore Evening Sun, 129 

Baltimore Four, trial of, 154 

Baltimore Museum of Art, 1 13 

Baltimore Sun, 202 

Barn, 77, 141, 26in.3 

Barnett, Robert H., 184 

Barton, Vola P., 99 

Barzun, Jacques, 142 

Beardsley, Grace, 37 

Beardsley,WilfordA., 95 

Beatty, J. M., Jr., 29, 94; "Builders of 
Greater Goucher," 29; "In Memori- 
am," 29 

Belford, Fontaine, 230 

Belluschi, Pietro, 80, 26in.4, 264n.25 

Bennett, Benjamin P., 259n.32 

Bennett, Eleanor A., 259n.32 

Bennett Hall, 24, 48, 259n.32, 2650.51 

Bennett House, 47, 75, 2590.32, 2650.51 

Bequests to College, 120. See also names 
of individual donors 

Berlinrood, Martin, 223, 241 

Bernstein, Dorothy L., 98, 1 14, 274n.2 

Billet, James, 208, 241; on academic pro- 
gram, 215-17, 227-28, 230; and fac- 
ulty reductions, 199-200, 202, 203, 
221 

Biological Sciences department, 9, 98- 
99, 200. See also Physiology and 
Hygiene department 

Black student, first admitted, 126 

Black Students' Association, 159 

Blanchard, Rae, 95 

Board of Control, 5,9, 10, 11, 12, 
2540.1 

Board of Instruction, 9, 10, 12, 254n.i 

Board of Overseers, 71, 192 



Board of Trustees. See Trustee aaions 

Boerner, Barbara, 2790.9 

Bood, Chrystelle X, 94 

Bonnefoux, Jean-Pierre, 245 

Borries, Eline von, 24, 83-84, 100 
2650.53 

Boulanger, Nadia, 142 

Bowman, Ethel, 99 

Bradford, Jean, 99 

Braunlich, Alice F., 95 

Bready, James H., 242 

Brmkley, Roberta F., 95 

Broadfoot, Michele M., 28in.20 

"Broadsides," 42 

Browder, Earl, 28 

Brown, H. Barksdale, 2740.2 

Brown, Hilton, 94 

Brune, Frederick W., 38 

Bryant, Catherine, 213-14 

Brzezioski, Zbigoiew, 142 

Bucher, Ingrid Y., 277n.i 5 

Buchner, Louisa W., 245 

Budget, college: absence of before 1930, 
254n.9; attempts to balance, 37, 186, 
205-6, 219; creation of, 177-79, 
180-81, 197-202; first at Goucher, 
21; recommended by President 
Robertson, 6 

"Builders of Greater Goucher" (J. M. 
Beatty, Jr.), 29 

Buildings. See Campus, city; Campus, 
Towson 

Buotiog, George F., Jr., 235-36 

Business officer, Mrs. Guth as, 6 

Bussey, Gertrude, 27, 50, 96, 133 

Calendar, academic, xiii, 9, 14,17, 164- 

66. See also January term 
Calvert Prize, 210 
Campaign for Human Resources, 185- 

87, 192, 205 
Campaigo for Womeo of Promise, 206, 

Campaigns. See Campaign for Human 
Resources; Campaign for Women of 
Promise; 50th Anniversary Campaign; 
"4-2-1" Campaign; 1950 campaign; 
75th Anniversary Campaign 

Campus, city, 5, 45, 48, 59, 85-87. See 
also Land, sale or lease of; and names 
of individual buildings 

Campus, Towson: architecture of, 24, 
29-30, 31-32, 67-68, 69-70; en- 
trance road to, 47, 76, 266n.8; in 
Guth-Robertson years, 5, 7, 23, 24, 33, 
44, 46-48; in Kraushaar years, 59-60, 
67-85, 88-91; Master Plan, 68, 88; 
Sasaki revisioo of Master Plan, 80, 88, 
91. See also Architectural competition; 
and names of individual buildings 

Campus Hills housiog developmeot, 89 

Caofield, Virginia, 95, 114 



Carnegie Corporation, ziS 

Carnegie reports: Changing Practices in 
Undergraduate Education, xiv; Pri- 
orities in Action, 174 

Carpenter, Ethel S., 5-6 

Carroll, Mollie R., 97 

Casey, Harry J., Jr., m, izi, 130, 
2.69n.7, Z74n.z, Z76n.29; on financial 
crisis, 181, 185,186 

Catherine Hooper Hall, 141 

Centennial celebration: dedication of 
Tiffany window during, Z43-44; final 
weekend of, Z45; footrace, Z44; na- 
tionwide activities related to, Z44; 
opening convocation of, 242-43; pic- 
nic, 242; planning for, Z4Z; scholar- 
ships, Z43; symposia, 243, 412-14; 
tea, 244; television coverage of, 24 z 

Chamberlain, John V., 96 

Channels, 1 5 5 

Chapel, Haebler Memorial, 75, 81-82 

Chapel organ, 8z 

Chaplain's sex sermon, 129-31 

Chapman, Gretel, 94, 2zz 

Charles E. Merrill Trust, 113 

Charter, College, 9 

Chase, Mary Ellen, 14Z 

Cheit, Earl, xiv, 174-76 

Chemistry Club, ziz-13 

Chemistry department, 9, 99 

Chiang Kai-Shek, Madame, 44 

Chicago, University of, x, xi, xii, 103 

Cicone, Judge Frank E., Z03 

City College of New York, 140 

Civilian Production Administration, 47 

Classics department, 95, zoo-zoi, zoz 

Cleland, Ralph E., 98 

Cochrane, Stephenson and Wing (archi- 
tects), 83 

Cockey, Ethel, 118 

Code of Conduct, i 59 

Coeducation, 170-73, Z47-51 

College Assembly: creation of, 155, 160, 
169-70; curricular changes approved 
by, 215-17, ZZ4-Z7, ZZ8-30; vote of, 
on coeducation, 171, 17Z, Z47 

"College Bowl" (CBS-TV), 140, 191 

College Center, 75, 80-81, 141, Z39 

College Council, 5, Z7, 35 

College teacher preparatory program, 
114- 16 

Collier- Adams, Julie, zo8 

Columbia University, contemporary civi- 
lization course of, x, xii 

Combination major, 19, Z27 

Commencement exercises, 44, 139-140 

Committee on the Future of the College, 
xiii-xiv, xvi, 154, 161-173 

Committees, faculty, 12, 19. See also 
names of individual committees 

Communication department, 97, 218 

Comprehensive examinations, 14, 18, 
154. 155-57, 168 



Compton, Carl X, 142 
Computer science program, 218 
Computing, academic, 114, ZZ5, zz8, 

Z40 
Conant, James Bryant, 14Z 
Conner, Frances R., 50, 82, 134, 185 

256n.47 
Conner House, 8z 
Continuing education programs, zo-zi, 

1 1 3-14, Z30-3I 
Coon, Geraldine A., 98 
Cooperman, Jerome I., 97, zzi, 275n.24 
Copland, Aaron, 142 
Corbeau, Andre, 97 
Core course, 222 

Corner, Eleanor D., 31, 113, 255n.28 
Corrin, Brownlee S., 97, 113, 241, 

269n.7 
Course credits, 17, 2z8-Z9 
Course evaluation system, 193 
Court decisions, 38, 203-4 
Crane, Esther, 35, 97, 103 
Crittenden, Phoebe J., 99 
Crocker, Lester C, 95 
Crooks, Esther J., 95 
Cryptography, war-time course in, 40 
Curriculum: in 1934, ix-xii, 6, 9, 12- 

21, 64-65, 103—4; '1 1958, xii, 92, 

104-117; in 1970, xii-xiv, 161-64, 

166—68; in 1975-81, xiv-xvi, 215- 

Curriculum Committee, 5,14, 107, 109- 

10, 113-14, 156 
Curtis, Eugene N., 10, 96 

Dad's Day, 138 

Dalsheimer, Mr. and Mrs. Hugo, 121 

Dalton, Pat B., zSin.zo 

Dance department, 12, 94, 243 

Dance/Movement Therapy program, 
229-30 

Dartmouth College, x 

David Allan Robertson Wing (Julia 
Rogers Library), 84, 184 

Davis, Francis A., 59, 77, 89 

Debate team, 26 

DeChiaro, Ralph, 89, 90, 240 

Decker Center for Information Technolo- 
gy, 240. See also Computing, academic 

deFord, Sara, 95 

Degree requirements: in 1934 curricu- 
lum, 16-19, 103-4; '1 1958 curricu- 
lum, 107-8; in 1970 curriculum, 166- 
68; in 1975-81 curriculum, 223-27 

Degrees, honorary, 32, 44, 50, 191-92 

Delaware, University of, 34-35 

Departments, academic, 9-10. See also 
names of individual departments 

Depression, effects of, ZI-Z3, 30, 174- 
88 

Dersch, Virginia, Z79n.9 

Desegregation, racial, 125-27, 140, 151 



Development Committee (trustee), 178, 
185 

Development plan, ten-year, 67, 68 

DeVries, Donald, 106, 221-22 

Dewey, John, x 

Dewey, Thomas E., 137-38 

Dilettante, 35, 137 

Disheroon, Leslie, 233-240 

Dismissals, faculty, 11- 12, 37, 209 

Divisions of curriculum: lower, xi, 14- 
17, 103-8; upper, xi, 14-15, 108-1 1 

Dodson, Helen, 263n.26 

Donald Hammond Associates, 69 

Donaldson, John K.,Jr., 202-3 

Donnybrook, 90 

Donnybrook Fair, 138 

Dorothy Stimson Hall, 79, 82-83, 1^4' 
239, 26on.2 

Dorsey, Rhoda M., 57, 114, 115, 140, 
156, 274n.2, 277n.i; on American As- 
sociation of University Professors cen- 
sure, 222; and Centennial celebration, 
Z42, 245-46, 18 in. 20; and coeduca- 
tion decision, 247, 250, 251; on ener- 
gy, 204; and enrollments, 205, 234; 
and faculty terminations, 199-201, 
zoz, Z03, 221, 222; on finances, 204, 
235; on James Billet, 241; and Middle 
States evaluation, 208; positions held 
by, 96, 191, 192-93, 197, 207-8, 
26on.58, 269n.7, 274n.2; and strategic 
plan, 236; and students, 214, 241; and 
Tiffany window, 244; and workers' 
strike, 237 

Double major, 227 

Dowell, George B., 94 

Downtown campus. See Campus, city 

Duggan, Edward, 279n.9, 28on.i3 

Dulaney, Henry S., 262n.2i 

Dulaney House, 262n.2i 

Dulaney Valley Road, 59-60, 90, 240- 



Dunnock He 



45 



Earhart, Amelia, 26 

Early admissions program, 101-3 

Eastern High School (Baltimore), loi 

Ebeling, Hermann, 95 

Echo, 155 

Economics departments: Economics and 
Management, 97, 218; Economics and 
Sociology, 9, 20-21 

Educational Facilities Laboratories, 83 

Education department, 9, 97, 200; grad- 
uate program of, in elementary teacher 
education, 103, 229; undergraduate 
program of, in elementary teacher edu- 
cation, 103 

Ehrlich, Sibylle, 95 

Eight objectives, x-xi, 9, 15-17, 18, 64, 
106 

Eisenhower, Dwight D., 138 



Elderkin, Clarence, 77 

Elementary teacher education programs: 
undergraduate, 103; graduate, 103, 
229 

Eline von Borries Swimming Pool, 83-84 

Elizabeth B. and David A. Robertson 
Lectureship, 141 

Elmore B. Jeffery Lectures, 141 

E Longinquo, 139 

Endowment: expendable, nearing exhaus- 
tion, 199, 201-2, 219; expendable, 
need to increase, 184-85, 205, 206; 
expendable, need to use, 176, 186; in- 
creased by President Guth, 5; invested 
in dormitories, 37-38; President 
Kraushaar's concern about, 61; prob- 
lems with use of, 37-38 

Energy Resources Management Company 
(ThERM), 205 

Eney, H. Vernon, 87, 89, 127, 128, 184- 
85, 203, 274n.2 

English department, 9, 19, 20, 94-95. 

Enrollment: in Dorsey years, 197-99, 
200, 201, 205, Z15, 2i8, 234, 
279n.io; in Guth-Robertson years, 5, 
21-22, 23, 34, 37, 45, 46, 256n.39; in 
Kraushaar years, 63, 79; in Perry years, 
170, 175, 179-80. See also Finances, 
college 

Equal Rights Council, 35 

Executive Committee, Board of Trustees. 
See Trustee actions 

Executive Council. See President's Coun- 



Faculties 1, H, and 111, 12 

Faculty awards (trustee), 210-1 1 

Faculty Club, 21-22 

Faculty: appointments, lo-ii, loi; 
housing, 48, 62, 91, 26on.3; promo- 
tions, 12, 81, 181, 255n.3i 

Faculty (instructional): in Dorsey years, 
209-10, 221, 250; in Guth-Robertson 
years, 5, 21-23, ^7' '" Kraushaar 
years, 63, 92-101, 105; in Perry years, 
154, 190-91, 193-94 

Faculty (legislative body): in Dorsey 
years, 200, 210, 236, 247; in 
Kraushaar years, iio-ii, 112, 114; in 
Perry years, 155, 158, 162-63, '^5- 
68, 169-70, 171-72, 193; in 
Robertson years, 10-14, 17, 27-28, 
40 

Faculty Personnel Policies Committee 
(trustee), 200, 209 

Faculty Planning Committee. See Plan- 
ning Committee, faculty 

Faculty Review Committee, 200, 201, 
202. See also Personnel, reduction in 

Falk Foundation, 1 13 

Farley, Noel J. J., 97, 274n.i 



Federal Educational Facilities grant, 84 

Fensal Hall, 45, 48 

Field Politics Center, Fiughes, 97, 1 13, 

50th Anniversary Campaign, 24, 30-31, 
3 3-34 

50th Anniversary celebration, 23, 32 

Finances, college: addressed by President 
Robertson, 6; effect of depression on, 
21; effect of energy on, 204-5; effect 
of, on 1973 coeducation debate, 170, 
171; effect of voluntary faculty salary 
cut on, 22-23; exigency of, 199, 222; 
overview of, 174-88; President 
Kraushaar on, 61-63, 64; resulting in 
deficits, surpluses, and debt, 25, 45- 
46, 197-202, 204-6, 215-16. See 
also Bequests to College; Budget, col- 
lege; Depression, effects of; Endow- 
ment; Enrollment; Financial exigency; 
Fund-raising; Land, sale or lease of; 
Salaries and wages, faculty and staff; 
Tuition and fees, increases in; and 
names of individual campaigns and do- 
nors 

Financial aid, 183, 234-35 

Fine arts building, 91 

Fine arts. See Art department 

First year program, 212 

Fiske, Josephine, 100 

Fitzhugh, Elizabeth R., 97 

Fitzpatrick, Blanche, 97 

Folkvang Hall, 45 

Foote, George, 97 

Ford Foundation, 11 5-16, izz, 185. See 
also Fund for Adult Education; Fund 
for the Advancement of Education 

Foreign study. See Study abroad pro- 
grams 

Foster House, 27, 38, 45 

"4-2-1" Campaign, 5, 7, 31 

Frank, Judge Eli, 38 

Frankil, Viktor, 142 

Free elective system (Harvard), x 

Frehafer, Katharine, 99 

French. See Modern Languages depart- 

Freshman seminars, 115, 167-68 
Friends of the Library, 71, 119 
Froelicher, Frances M., 44, 262n.2i 
Froelicher, Hans, 5, 11, 24, 93, 253n.6, 

262n.2i, 266n.i 
Froelicher Hall, 69-70, 184, 26on.2, 

262nn. 20, 21, 263n.i 
Frost, Robert, 142 
Frost and Frost (architects), 32 
Fund for Adult Education, 123-24 
Fund for the Advancement of Education, 

101-3, 104 
Fund-raising, 62-63, 65, 68, 69, 120- 
122. See also Alumnae Fund; Alumnae 
Gift Building Fund; Depression, effects 
of; Finances, college; Goucher College 



Fund; Land, sale or lease of; and 
names of campaigns and individual do- 
nors of bequests, gifts, and grants 
Funk, Helen B., 99, 269n.7 

Gairdner Moment Wing (Hoffberger Sci- 
ence Building), 99, 238 
Galbraith, John Kenneth, 142, 238 
Galkin, Ellion W., 94, 113, 269n.7 
Gallagher, Katharine J., 96, 263n.2 
Gallagher House, 263n.2 
Gamble, James N., 78 
Gamble House, 78 
Gateway, William W. Guth Memorial, 

46, 59-60, 77 
Geen, Elizabeth: on academic program, 

80, 106; career of, 95, 103, 191, 192, 

26on.58, 267n.9, 268n.27 
Gemwell, Edgar, 185 
General education, x-xii, xiv-xvi, 14- 

1 5, 64-65, 103-8. See also Arts and 

Ideas course; Core course; Eight objec- 
tives; Freshman seminars 
General Education in a Free Society 

("Harvard Red Book"), xi-xii, 64-65 
German department, 9. See also Modern 

Languages department 
German Language Institute, 1 12 
Gibbs, Lucretia M., 157, 274n.2, 

275n.24 
Gifted and Talented Program in the Arts, 

131 
G-I-G (Get-into-Goucher) Day, 241-42 
Gimie Annex, 45 
Gimie Hall, 45, 85 
Githens, Marianne, 97 
"Give-or-Get-for-Goucher" Campaign. 

See "4-2-1" Campaign. 
Glass, H. Bentley, 98 
Glee Club, 26 
Goddard, Eunice R. 95 
Goldman, Patricia, 247, 249, 269n.2 
Gonzaga University, 191 
Goodhue, Bertram G., 29—30 
Goodloe, James F., 95 
"Good Morning America" (ABC-TV), 

242 
Gotwals, Harry D., 28 in. 20 
Goucher, John F., 43, 87 
Goucher, Mary Cecelia F., 44, 243 
Goucher Boulevard, 90 
Goucher Center for Continuing Studies, 

114, 230-31 
Goucher College Fund, 37 
Goucher College Weekly: See Weekly, 

Goucher College 
Goucher Committee to Defend America 

by Aiding the Allies, 39 
Goucher Defense Organization, 39 
Goucher Hall, 32, 45, 59, 61 
Goucher House, 62, 87, 1 19, 265n.i 
Goucher Plan. See Curriculum: in 1934 



Goucher II program, 1 14, z^i, i8on.4i 

Gaucher Victory, 43 

Governance, College: in Perry years, 

168-70, 190; in Robertson years, 5-6, 

I o- 1 1 , 12. 
Government aid to education, 117-28 
Grading system, xiii, i 54, 228 
Graduate programs: in art therapy, 218, 

230; m dance/movement therapy, 229- 

30; in elementary education, 103, 229, 

266n.7 
"Great Books" approach to education, 

ix, xi-xii, XV 
Greater Goucher. See Campus, Towson 
Greek department, 9. See also Classics 

department 
Greenhouse, 213 
Greif, Alice F., 269n.7 
Greif, Ann, 241 
Grievance Committee, 12, 200, 202, 209, 

210 
Groom's House, 76 
Guenther Brewing Company, 49 
Guidance officers, 16 
Guth, Helen L. (Mrs. William W.), 6, 46, 

77, 262n.2I 
Guth, William W., 4-6, 1 1, 29-30, 46, 

253nn. 5, 6, 262n.2i 
Gymnasium. See Lilian Welsh Gym- 
nasium 

Habermann, Helen M., 99, 115 
Haebler, daughters of Mr. and Mrs. 

William T, 82, 121 
Haebler, Mrs. William T, 76, 79, 8i 
Haebler Memorial Chapel, 75, 81-82 
Haile, Edmund F., 236, 238-40 
Hammond, Donald, 71. See also Donald 

Hammond Associates 
Hampton, Charlotte T., 263n.2 
Harris, Janet J., 206, 233, 2690.7, 

28in.i 
Harry A. Hudgins Company, 37, 38 
Harvard University, xi-xii, 64-65 
Hawes, Raymond P., 96 
Health Center, 44, 73, 82, 84, 212, 

264n.39 
Hecht's department store, 33 
Hedges, William L., 95, 221, 274n.2 
Henry, John, 192-93, 205, 208 
Henry and Ruth Blaustein Rosenberg 

Lectureship in Music, 142 
Herberg, Will, 142 
Hesky, Mary Taylor, 24 1 
Hester Wagner House, 82 
Heubeck Hall. See Anna Heubeck Hall 
High Point College, 191 
History department, 9, 20, 50, 96-97 
History of Goucher College (Knipp and 

Thomas), 3, 12 



Hobbs, Clark S.: appointed vice presi- 
dent, 50; and land sale negotiations, 
48, 88; prepared development plan, 
67-68; prepared for Kraushaars' arriv- 
al, 48, 60, 62 

Hodge, Mary A., 98 

Hoffberger, Samuel, 72 

Hoffberger family, 49, 72 -73, 263n.23, 
263n.27 

Hoffberger Science Building, 47-48, 60, 
72-73, 81, 238, 263nn. 26, 27 

Honors, academic. See Academic distinc- 
tion 

Honors Comminee, i lo-i i 

Hooper, Lulie P., 262n.2i 

Hooper House, 262n.zi 

Hoover, Herbert, 26-27 

Hopkins, Annette B., 95 

Hopkins, William H., 139 

Horn, David, 99 

Horning, Marjorie, 212 

Horrigan, Jean, 28 in. 20 

Houseman, Barton L., 99, 228, 2740.22, 
279n.9 

Housing and Home Finance Agency, 127 

Howard S. Nulton Lecture Fund, 142 

Howe, Florence, 114 

Hughes, Harry, 210, 242-43 

Hughes, Sarah T., 120, 244, 2690.2 

Hughes Center, 97, 113 

Humanities building. See Van Meter Hall 

Human Values in the Emerging American 
City, 123, 124 

Hundertmark, Judith B., 28 in. 20 

Hunner House, 45, 85 

Hutzler, Albert, 48 

Hurzler's department store, 33, 49, 59, 
89 

Huxtable, Ada Louise, 243 

Independent work, 17, 110- 11 
Infirmary Auxiliary, 27 
"In Memoriam" (J. M. Beatty, Jr.), 29 
Institute for secondary school teachers of 

modern languages, 112 
Institute in economics and sociology, 1 1 2 
Integrative exercise, 157, 168, 223 
Intellectual Country Fair, 112, 119 
Interinstitutional exchange program, 113, 

193 
International relations, 19-20 
Internships, off-campus, 40-42, 225 
Italian. See Modern Languages depart- 
ment 

Jack H. Pearlstone, Jr., Charitable Trust, 

2-39 
Jack Pearlstone Student Center, 213, 239, 

240 
Jane and Robert Meyerhoff Lectureship, 

238 



January term, xiii, 164-66, 167, ZZ5, 

Z74n.zz 
Jarrell, Randall, 142 
Jeffery, Elmore B., 31,78 
Jeffery House, 31, 78 
Jeffrey, Julie Roy, 97, 248-5 1 
John Franklin Goucher Medal, 83 
Johns Hopkins University, 80, 113, 171- 

73 
Johns Hopkins University School of 

Hygiene and Public Health, 228 
Johnson, Lincoln F., 93, 1 14 
Johnson, William S., 279n.9 
Joint Economic Council Workshop, 1 1 2 
Jones, John Price, 69 
Jones, Sarah D., 95 
Jordan, June, 243 
Julia Rogers Library, 47, 48, 61, 68-69, 

70-71, 84, 103-4 

Kalends, 35, 136-7 

Kaufman, Frank, 269n.7 

K-Day, 143 

Kclley, Louise, 50, 84, 98, 99, 26on.58 

Kelley Lecture Hall, 84 

Kennedy, Robert F., 154 

Kentucky, University of, 140 

Kerr, Clark, 174-75 

Ketchum, Inc., 206 

Kmg, Jessie L., 98 

King, Martin Luther, Jr., 154 

Kirk, Harris E., 96 

Kistiakowsky, Vera, 243 

Knipp, Anna H., 3, 12, 78 

Knower, Barry, 94, 279n.9 

Koppelman, Elaine, 98, 221, 279n.9 

Kraushaar, Otto F., 50, 57-66, 81, izi, 
143, 191-92, 242; and academic pro- 
gram, xii, 64-65, 80, 103-4, 1 12—13; 
and alumnae, 61-62, 66, 69, 80, 118- 
19; on architecture, 67-68; on Barn, 
77; and bequest program, 120; on 
building campus, 67, 72-73, 75; on 
city campus, 85-87; on college move, 
62-63, 65; on crises, 125-31; and cul- 
tural events, 140-42; and early admis- 
sions; 102-3; 31'' enrollments, 63; on 
faculty, 63; and faculty salaries, 100; 
and finances, 61, 63, 64, 65, 67, 69; 
and Ford Foundation grant, 122; and 
library, 48, 68-69, 70-71; and 1950 
campaign, 69; period, 189; and physi- 
cal education program, 83-84, 
265n.53; on President Robertson, 63- 
65; residences of, 48, 62, 79; and 75th 
anniversary 123-24; and students, 65- 
66, 74, loi, 132-137, 259n.56; and 
trustees, 61-63 

Kraushaar Auditorium, 81, 141. See also 
College Center 

Kresge, Sebastian, 72-73, 263n.23 



Kresge Foundation, 72-73, 263nn. 23, 

Krotkoff, Hertha, 202, 203-4 
Krugman, Carol L., Z73n.27 

Lacy, Ann M., 99 

Lahey, Richard, 94 

Lancaster, R. Kent, 97 

Land, sale or lease of: in Dorsey years, 

240-41; in Kraushaar years, 89; in 

Perry years, 185; in Robertson years, 

33, 38,45,48-49 
Land Development Committee, 87, 185 
Landon, Alfred, 28 
Lang, George F., 82 
Lang, Marian Gift, 82 
Langdon, Ladema M., 98 
Language Laboratory, 1 1, 21, 80, 239 
Latin department, 10. See also Classics 

department 
Latzer, Cora O., 239 
Latzer Room, 239 
Lectureships, endowed, 141-42. See also 

names of individual lectureships 
Lemmi, Charles W, 95, 25 5n.29 
Lentulay, Rudy J., 95 
Levels of difficulty in curriculum, xii, 

109, 1 1 1 
Lewand, Robert E., 98 
Lewis, Florence P., 97, 263n.26 
Lewis, Grace T., 82 
Lewis, Robert H., 94, 113 
Lewis House, 82 
Lewis Telescope, 98, 263n.26 
Liberty ship John F. Goucher, 43 
Library. See Julia Rogers Library 
Library (city campus), 5, 17, 28, 103-4 
Lilian Welsh Gymnasium, 72-73, 77, 

141, 263n.27 
Lilian Welsh Laboratory, 47-48, 

26 3 n. 27. See also Hoffberger Science 

Building 
Litigation involving College, 203-4 
Lloyd, Howard H., 99 
Long, Barbara, 99 
Long, Howard, 266n.7 
Longley, William H., 98 
Lonn, Ella, 96 

Louise Kelley Lecture Hall, 84 
Louisiana State University, 191 
Lowell, Robert, 142 
Lowenlish, Lee, 156 
Loyola College, 193 
Ludlington Airplane Line, 26 
Luetkemeyer, John, 89, 121, 122, 128 
Lyons, William T., Inc., 263n.27 

McCarthy, Eugene, 154 
McCarty, Stella A., 44, 97 
McCasland, S. Vernon, 96 
McCormick Company, 49, 240 



Index 



McCullers, Carson, 142. 

McCurley, Mary T., 5, 1 18 

McDougle, Ivan E., 51, 97 

McHale, Kathryn, 97 

McKim, Mead and White (architects), 87 

MacLeish, Archibald, 142 

Major concentration, 19-zo, zi, 109- 
1 10. See also Combination major; 
Double major 

Management program, 218 

Mardal House, 45 

Marechaux, Genevieve, 195 

Marts and Lundy, Inc., 120 

Mary Fisher Hall; in Kraushaar years, 
60, 73, 80, 262n.2i, 263n.25; in Perry 
years, 184; in Robertson years, 33-34, 
37, 38-39,44.45,48, 26on.2 

Maryland, State of, 186, 239 

Maryland Historical Trust, 210 

Maryland Independent College and Uni- 
versity Association (MICUA), 234-35 

Maryland State Roads Commission, 47, 
89-90 

Master of Arts degree programs: in art 
therapy, 230; in dance/movement 
therapy, 229-30 

Master of Education degree program, 
103, 229 

Master of Public Health program, 226 

Mathematics department, 10, 19, 97, 

Matilla, Alfredo, 156 

Mattfeld, Jacqueline, 235 

May Ball, 35 

May Fair, 27 in. 2 

Mead, Margaret, 142 

Mellon Foundation. See Andrew W. 
Mellon Foundation 

Memorials, committee on, 44 

Methodist Episcopal Church, Baltimore 
Conference of, 3 2 

Meyerhoff, Jane, 238 

Meyerhoff, Robert, 238 

Meyerhoff Lectureship, 238, 241 

Middle States Association, 51, 108, 208- 
9, 26on.6o 

Midgard Hall, 45 

Miller, Anna I., 95 

Minnesota, University of, 140 

Modern Languages department, 21, 80, 
95, 200, 201, 255n.29, 264n.22, 
266n.i 

Moment, Gairdner B., 98, 138 

Moore, Marianne, 142 

Moore and Hutchins (architects): Presi- 
dent Kraushaar on, 61, 67-68; as win- 
ners of national architectural 
competition, 32 

Morale: community, 5, 34, 45, 46; fac- 
ulty, 3, 5, 12, 17, 18, 63, 149, 187, 
209; student, 3, 4-5, 17, 19, 74 

Morgan State College, 193 



Morrell, Jane, 97 

Morris, Walter M., 96, 193 

Morton, Joseph, 96, 275n.24 

Morton, Marilyn, 274n.2 

Motz, John, 89 

Moving of campus: in Kraushaar years, 
60, 62-63, 65, 67, 68, 26in.8; in 
Robertson years, 30-31, 44-48 

Mueller, William R., 95 

Muller, Stephen, xv 

Mulligan, Addison E., 121 

Munns, Lawrence Kay, 97, 113, 223 

Murray, Florence, 43 

Music department, 21, 94, 243 

Musser, Frederic O., 95, 208 

Muuss, Rolf, 97 

National Defense Education Act (NDEA), 
1 12, 128-29, 27on.i I 

National Institutes of Health (NIH), 81 

National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), 
236-37 

National Register of Historic Places, 85 

National Science Foundation (NSF), 112, 
1 14, 228 

National Service Program (Goucher), 39, 
40 

Natunewicz, Chester F., 202, 203, 
278n.24 

Navy, U.S., 40 

Newman, Katharine, 223 

Newmann, William L., 97, 193 

New Plan. See Curriculum: in 1934 

Newspaper, student. See Echo; Outcry; 
Quindecim; Weekly, Goucher College 

New York Times, 1 29 

Nichols, Martha A.: on admissions stan- 
dards, 125; and Centennial celebra- 
tion, 242, 244; member of Committee 
on Future of College, 274n.2; planner 
of house system, 1 34; and response to 
sex sermon crisis, 130; retirement of, 
208; and student life, 135 

Nicholson, Marjorie, 60 

Niles, Emory H.: on accepting govern- 
ment aid, 1 27; introduces resolution 
on war, 39-40; and land sale negotia- 
tions, 48; and 1950 campaign, 67, 68, 
69, 26in.6; as planner of Towson cam- 
pus, 3 I, 47, 61, 62, 68 

1950 campaign, 69 

Nitchie, Elizabeth, 95 

Noble, Enrique, 95 

Non-Western Studies program, 1 16 

Northwood Theater, 1 40 

Oates, Joyce Carol, 243 

O'Connor, Clare, 274n.2 

Off-campus experience requirement, xv, 

40-41,225 
Office of Price Administration (OPA), 42 
Ogilvie and Mather, Inc., 248 



Old Goucher College Historic District, 

85 
Oppenheimer, J. Robert, 142 
Ortmann, Otto, 94 
Otto, Belle. See Talbot, Belle Otto 
Outcry, ii 1-212 
Overseers. See Board of Overseers 

Paley, Grace, Z43 

Palmer, Richard R., 198-99, 246 

Pan-American Conference, 35 

Pancoast, Elinor, 97 

Pan-Hellenic Council, 28 

Pannell, Anne G., 96, 26on.58 

Parents' Weekend, 138 

Parietal rules, 154, 159—60 

Pass-fail grading, xiii, iii, 154 

Patterson, Barbara, 273n.3o 

Peabody Institute, 1 1 3 

Peabody Institute Branch, 90, 265n.6 

Pearlstone, Jack, 206, 222, 239, 240 

Pearlstone Center, 213, 239, 240 

Pearson, Carol, 241 

Peirce, Brooke, 95, 194, 221 

Penofsky, Irwin, 142 

Performance facilities, in Kraushaar 
years, 141 

Perot Foundation, 1 8 1 

Perry, Marvin B., Jr., 143, 171, 192, 194, 
242, 272n.2; assessment of, 149-50, 
160, 189-91; created Committee on 
Future of College, 161; and finances, 
178, 183-84, 187, 188; responds to 
student activism, 157-59; and student 
life, 154 

Personnel, reduction in: in Dorsey years, 
198-203, 218-22; in Perry years, 181; 
in Robertson years, 37 

Petrou, Nicholas, 197-98, 199 

Phi Beta Kappa Society, 9 

Philosophy department, 10, 96, 200 

Physical Education: department, 10, 12, 
19, 83-84, TOO, 200, 254n.i2; pro- 
gram, 24, 80, 229 

Physical Plant Compound, 79-80 

Physics department, 10, 21, 40, 99, 200 

Physiology and bacteriology. See Biolog- 
ical Sciences department 

Physiology and Hygiene department, to, 
21, 47-48, 254n.i2, 259n.3 2. See also 
Biological Sciences department 

Planning Committee, faculty, 24, 31, 50, 
69-70, 80, 82, 256n.40 

Plant Laboratory Annex, 84, 26 5 n. 5 6 

Political Science department, 10, 19-20, 
40-41,97 

Portuguese. See Modem Languages de- 
partment 

Post-Baccalaureate Premedical Program, 
28in.4Z 

Power House and Laundry, 85 

Preface, 1 3 7 



Presidential selection committee, 3, 50, 

59, 143, i9i 
President's boat ride, 136, 2 59n.56 
President's Council, 10, 12, 169 
Presidents' houses: Goucher House, 62, 

87; Guth House, 62; on Joppa Road, 

48, 60—61, 62, 79; on Towson cam- 
pus, 62, 79 

Primrose, H. Clay, 39 

Princeton University debate club, 26 

Priorities and Planning Committee, 181, 
206 

Prizes: Calvert, 210; Pulitzer, 39 

Probst, Carrie Mae 13, 83 

Probst House, 83 

Progressive Education movement, x-xi, 
103 

Promotion, faculty committee on. See 
Planning Committee, faculty 

Protest, student. See Activism, student 

Prouty, Donna, 273n.30 

Psychology Annex, 84 

Psychology department, 10, 99 

Public Leadership Education Network 
(PLEN), 228 

Publications and Dramatics, Headquar- 
ters for, 85 

Pulitzer Prize, 39 

Purcell, Patricia P., 208, 233 

Quindecim, 247, 251, 279n.i3 
Quinn, Olive W., 97, 269n.7 

Rachuba, Larry, 240—41 
Racial discrimination, 125-2.7 
Ralph DeChiaro Enterprises, Inc., 89, 

240 
Reappointment, Promotion and Tenure, 

committee on, 12, 209, 254n.8. See 

also Faculty: promotions; Tenure 
Registrar, offce of, 1 3 
Religion department, 10, 12, 19, 96, 200 
Remedial work, 19 
Reno, Russell R.,Jr., 240 
Reuss, Frederick G., 97 
Reverend's Rebels, 139 
Richardson, Emma R., 274n.2 
Riches, Naomi, 13, 27 
Richter Cornbrooks Matthai Hopkins, 

Inc. (architects), 238 
Riding ring, 76 
Rigol, Sergio, 95 
Ritter, Waldemar H., 30 
Robertson, Anne K. (Mrs. David A.), 24- 

2-6, 39 
Robertson, David A., 3-4, 24-26, 39, 

49, 50, 125, 259n.53; and academic 
program, x, 6, 13-14, 15, 19, 4^-43; 
assessment of, 6, 53, 63-65, 189-91, 
253n.5; and campus life, 27, 40, 45, 
259n.56; on deanship, 80; on duties of 
vice president, 37; and finances, 6, 22- 



{continued Robertson, David A.) 

13, 30-31, 46, 61; and governance, 6, 
10, 12, 18-19; library wing named 
for, 84; and Towson campus building, 
23-24, 30-31, 34, 44,68 

Robertson, Elizabeth B. (Mrs. David A.), 
50, 259n.53 

Robinson, Edward L., 3, 31, 259n.32 

Robinson, Elizabeth B. (Mrs. Edward L.), 
50 

Robinson, Myra D. (Mrs. Edward L.), 
31, Z59n.3Z 

Robinson-Bennett dormitory. See Anna 
Heubeck Hall; Bennen House; Robin- 
son House 

Robinson House, 31, 47, 75, 259n.32, 
263n.25 

Rockefeller, Nelson, 154 

Rogerian psychology, xiii 

Rogers, Julia, 49, 61, 69, 259n.48 

Rogers, Taliaferro and Lamb (architects), 
79,81 

Romance Languages department, 10. See 
also Modern Languages department 

Roosevelt, Franklin D., 26-27, 2^8, 35 

Rose, Annalies, 99 

Rose, Mary Carmen, 96 

Rosenberg, Ruth B., 142, 239 

Rosenberg Gallery, 239 

Rosovsky, Henry, xv 

Rosselet, Jeanne, 95 

Rossi, Alice S., 97 

Russian. See Modern Languages depart- 



Saarinan, Eliel and Eero (architects), 32 

Sachs, Susan M., 275n.24 

Safriet, Barbara, 156, 274n.z 

Salaries and wages, faculty and staff: in 
Dorsey years, 199; in Kraushaar years, 
60, 61, 63, 100; in Perry years, 175, 
180-83; in Robertson years, zi, 2z- 
2-3 

Sasaki, Hideo, 77, 80, 82, 88, 91, 
26in.4, 264n.9 

Sayre, Jessie Woodrow Wilson, 253n.6 

Schaefer, William Donald, 245 

Schary, Mrs. Saul, 269n.7 

Schmiel, Robert C, zoz 

Schroedl, Evelyn D., 274n.2, 28 in. 20 

Schwab, Diane, 273n.30 

Second bachelor's degree program, 230 

Seibert, Louise C, 266n.i 

Selective Service Act, 37 

Self-scheduled examinations, 154 

Sessrymner Hall, 45, 85 

75th Anniversary Campaign, 81, 120-23 

75th Anniversary celebration, 123-24, 
269n.7 

Sexton, Ann, 142 

Shaumann, Herbert, 37 

Shefloe, Joseph S., 11, 80 



Sherwood, John W., 3 i, 43, 49 

Ships with Goucher name, 43 

Signal Corps, U.S. Army, 40 

Skinner, Cornelia Otis, 49 

Skipper, Joshua, 60 

Smith College, xii, 60, 61, 65 

Snack bar, 239 

Sociology department, 97. See also Eco- 
nomics departments 

Sondheim, Walter, 127, 192, 199, 200, 
207, 208, 269n.7, I74n.2 

Soper, Morris, 67, 126 

Sophomore general examinations: con- 
struction of, 18-19; elimination of, 
108, 267n.i6; President Kraushaar on, 
64; purpose of, xi, 16, 103, 106 

Sororities, 51, 133-34, 2.58n.55, 
26on.6i 

Spanish. See Modern Languages depart- 
ment 

Special academic programs. See College 
teacher preparatory program; Gradu- 
ate programs; Non-Western Studies 
program; Second bachelor's degree 
program; Study abroad programs 

Speers, Guthrie, 130 

Spencer, Eleanor, 42, 50, 59, 93, 113, 
269n.7 

Spender, Stephen, 142 

Spillers, Hortense, 243 

Stable, 76 

Stark, Arlynne, 230 

Sternlicht, Marilyn, 274n.2 

Stevenson, Adlai, 138-39 

Stimson, Dorothy: acting presidency of, 
5, 24; and college budget, 254n.9; on 
Clinton Winslow, 31; naming of hall 
for, 79; on "New Plan," 17; on Presi- 
dent Guth, 4-5, 29-30; as professor of 
history, 96; resignation as dean, 50, 
259n.57; talks by, 24 

Stimson Hall. See Dorothy Stimson Hall 

Stimson Lectures, 142, 259n.57 

Strategic Plan (1982), 235-36, 248-49 

Strike of service and maintenance person- 
nel, 236—38. See also Union, employ- 

Stroh, William R., 99 

Student activism. See Activism, student 

Student Center, 91, 213, 239 

Student life: in Dorsey years, 211-14, 
239, 241-42; in Kraushaar years, 74, 
132-43; in Perry years, 191; in 
Robertson years, 24-28, 34-37, 39, 
40-42, 45, 47, 51-53. See also Activ- 
ism, student; Anti-war movement ac- 
tivities; Desegregation, racial; Morale, 
student 

Students; characteristics of, loi, 189- 
90; preparation of, 19; relationship 
with President Kraushaar, 143; re- 
sponse of, to coeducation, 247, 250; 



response of, to new campus, 44, 45, 
46, 132-35; response of, to 1934 cur- 
riculum, 17. See also Activism, stu- 
dent; Admissions, student; Enrollment; 
Morale, student; Student life; Students' 
Organization 
Students' Organization, 27, 39, 52, 155, 

Study abroad programs, 34-35, 112, 

268n.30 
Summerfield Baldwin Foundation, 240 
Summer sessions, 40, 42-43, 1 12- 11 3, 

230 
Suranyi-Unger, Theodore, Jr., 97 
Sweet Briar College, 35, 191 
Swimming Pool, Eline von Borries, 83- 



See also Towson Plaza Shopping Cen- 

Trudheim Hall, 45 

Truman, Harry S., 137 

Trustee actions: in 1926-40: 4, 9-12, 
13,21,23,24, 31,32-33, 34; in 
1941-48: 37-38> 39-40. 43. 45. 49. 
50-51; in 1848-50: 59, 68, 69, 70, 
73; in 1953-66: 75-77, 79-83. 84. 
85, 126-29, 130—31, 143; in 1967- 
73: 159, 160, 171-73. 175. 185-88, 
192, 263n.2; in 1973-80: 197-203, 
205, 206, 207-8, 209-10, 216, 238; 
in 1980-86: 218, 221—22, 235-36, 
238, 247, 248-51 

Trustee-faculty relations, committee on. 
See Faculty Personnel Policies Commit- 



Talbot, Belle Otto, 99, 269n.7 

Tamblyn and Brown, Inc., 24 

Tatum, Beulah, 97 

Taylor, Samuel N., 99 

Ten Eyck, Marianne, 28in.20 

Tenure, lo-ii, 180, 203, zio. See also 
Personnel, reduction in 

Termination of faculty positions. See Per- 
sonnel, reduction in 

Theater department, 94, 243 

Thinglestad, Stephanie 1., 275n.24 

Thomas, Emma, 27, 118 

Thomas, J. Richard, 236 

Thomas, Norman, 27, 28, 137-38 

Thomas, Thaddeus P, 3, 12, 96 

Thompson, Holmes, and Converse (ar- 
chitects), 32 

Thomsen, George, 201-2 

Thomsen, Roszel C, 5, 32-33, 38, 81, 
89 

Thomson, Vergil, 142 

Thormann, Wolfgang E., 95, 210-11, 
230, 266n.i, 279n.9 

Thurmond, Strom, 137 

Tiffany, Louis Comfort, 243 

Tiffany window, 243-44 

Tillich, Paul, 142 

Tippett, Sir Michael, 142 

Todd, Elizabeth, 121, 269n.4 

Todd, George, 121, 186, 269n.4, 
276n.39 

Todd professorship, 121, 269n.4 

Tolley, Vlada, 95 

Tone Committee, 28, 51-53, 26on.64 

Torrey, Marian M., 98 

Towson Corner, 33, 48-49 

Towson Methodist Church, 90, 265n.5 

Towson Plaza Shopping Center, 82-83, 
240, 265n.3. See also Towsontown 
Shopping Center 

Towson State Teachers College, 46 

Towson State University, 193 

Towsontown Shopping Center, 33, 49. 



Tuition and fees, increases in, 44-45, 51, 

178-79, 198-99. i05 
Turner, Horation W., 37 
Tuttle House, 263n.2 

UNESCO, 42 

Union, employees, 182, 236-38 

Unionization of hourly wage workers, 

182. See also Strike of service and 

maintenance personnel 
Urey, Harold, 142 

Vanaheim Hall, 45 

Van Meter, John B., 48, 231 

Van Meter Hall: construction of, 47, 69; 
gift of alumnae, 31; name of, 48; Presi- 
dent Kraushaar on, 60; renovation of, 
84, 238-39; uses of, 48, 73, 141, 
26 3 n. 2 5 

Van Schaack, Eric, 94 

Velder, Eli, 97, 275n.24, 279n.9 

Venture, 137 

Verdy, Violette, 243 

Veterans, returning, 43, 63 

Vice president, office of, 37, 50 

Vingolf Hall, 46, 48 

Visual Arts. See Art department 

Viti, Ethel, 250-251 

Vosgerchian, Luise, 243 

Wagley, Mary Frances P., 274n.2 

Wagner, Hester Corner, 82, 118 

Wagner, Mrs. Robert, 269n.7 

Wagner House, 82 

Walker, Kenneth O., 96, 113, 116, 125, 
192, 207, 209, 269n.7 

Walker, Lewis A., 99, 228 

Walkout, student, from 1969 Convoca- 
tion, 152, 156-57 

Wallace, Henry, 137 

Walters Art Gallery, 2 1 3 

Wang, Christine W., 230 

War, Second World, 20-21, 34, 39-43, 
46 



Warshawsky, Marilyn S., iSin.zo 

Watkins, Judge R. Dorsey, Z03-4 

Wayne State University, 140 

Webb, H. Marguerite, 99 

Webb, James L. A., 99, 245n.22, 

Wednesday program, 113— 14 

Weekly, Gaucher College: in Dorsey 
years, 211-12, Z13-14, 215, 229, 
256n.59, 279n.i3; in Kraushaar years, 
136-140, 143; in Perry years, 154, 
155, 156; in Robertson years, 24-27, 
2-8, 35-37. 40, 42.> 45, 46, 52--53 

Wehr, Frederick, 161 

Welsh, Lilian, 44, 254n.i2, z$<)n.T,x 

Wesleyan University, 191 

Western High School (Baltimore), loi, 
266n.4 

Whitaker, Mrs. Milton C, 269n.7 

White, Fred H., 279n.9 

White, Roy, 71 

White, Stanford, 62 

Wilcox, Mary, 1 1 8 

William W. Guth Memorial Gateway, 46, 
75-76 

Williams, John C, 95 

Williams, Mary Wilhelmine, 96 

Williams, William Carlos, 142 

Williamson, C. H., 48 



Willkie, Wendell, 42 

Wilner, Eleanor, 274n.2 

Wilson, Donald H., 185 

Wilson, Frederick, 243 

Wilson, Winifred, L., 274n.2 

Wilson, Woodrow, 25 3n.6 

Wilson and Christie (architects), 82 

Winslow, Clinton I.: awards received by, 
83; Dorothy Stimson on, 31; on inter- 
national relations major, 20; as mem- 
ber of presidential selection committee, 
50, 59; on President Robertson, 6; as 
professor of political science, 97; role 
in campus construction, 31, 49 -50, 
69-70, 26in.4; talks by, 24 

Winslow, Ola, 39, 40, 95 

Winslow House, 83 

Women's Management Development Pro- 
gram, 231, 28on.38 

Wood, Frederick, 129-31, 27 in. 16 

Writing Center, 229 

Wyatt, Dorothea E., 96 

Wylie, Ruth A., 99 

Yale University, 256 n.12 
Zander machines, 24, 256n.44 



Designed by Chris L. Hotvedt 

Composed by The Composing Room of Michigan, Inc. in Sabon text and 

display 
Printed by The Maple Press Company on 60-lb Glatfeiter Eggshell A- 50 

Offset paper and bound in Holliston Roxite A 




(continued from front flap) 

footing; yet diminishing enrollments forced 
the college to reexamine its century-old mis- 
sion. Musser's history ends with Goucher's 
decision to become coeducational. 

Frederic O. Musser has taught at Goucher 
College since 1964. He has served as chair- 
man of the Department of Modern Lan- 
guages and Literatures and as assistant to 
the president. Since 1970 he has been pro- 
fessor of French. 



The Goucher College Series 



Jacket design by Glen Burris 



f^RI 




'The story of Gaucher is the 
story of an institution that 
has embraced change while 
maintaining a solid 
foundation. Goucher's past 
has helped set the stage for 
successful transition — 
economically, academically, 
and spiritually — as Gaucher 
enters its second century 
of providing superior liberal 
arts education. " 

— Dr. Rhoda M. Dorsey, 
President, Goucher College 



The Johns Hopkins University Press 

Baltimore and London 
ISBN 0-8018-3902-5