W. Taylor Reveley III, J.D.
President
The College of William and Mary
P.O. Box 8795
Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8795

Michael R. Halleran, Ph.D.
Provost
The College of William and Mary
P.O. Box 8795
Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8795

James R. Golden, Ph.D.
Vice President for Strategic Initiatives
The College of William and Mary
P.O. Box 8795
Williamsburg, Virginia 23187-8795

RE: Comments on Strategic Plan Implementation Steps

Gentlemen:

I write to offer the comments of the Society for the College regarding the strategic planning implementation steps intended to be completed by July 2010. Thank you for this opportunity to participate in the future of William & Mary. Thank you also for having been so generous with your time when Andrew McRoberts and I met with you in October.

You may recall that at our October meeting we provided an outline of the Society's views on the strategic plan. Many of the points raised in that outline bear on both the pending implementation steps and steps to be taken in later years, and we hope you will review the outline in that light. In this paper, we comment directly on the implementation steps, which had not yet been made available at the time that we prepared the outline; in many cases, you will see some of our earlier points restated in reaction to particular implementation steps.

Before addressing the implementation steps, we have one general comment on the planning process. The College has made available some very helpful background material, consisting of a number of studies and reports, but the implementation steps and the evolving frameworks on which comment has been invited consist of task lists or bullet point outlines, As far as we know, there is no report explaining the reasoning behind the goals identified for each challenge or the proposed implementation steps, It is therefore often difficult for anybody outside the process to comment intelligently, which leads us to suggest that future planning documents include further explanation of the reasoning behind goals and steps, The Society certainly appreciates the opportunity to participate in this process - it is far preferable to one in which the institution does not seek comment from alumni and other interested parties at all. At the same time, however, we want to be constructive, a better understanding of the reasons behind decisions might help us and other members of the College community who are at the periphery of the planning process, In any case, we hope the specific comments that follow will be helpful.

Challenge 1: Be a leader among liberal arts universities,

Goal 1: Embed the core values of liberal arts education in all parts of the university,

Conduct conversation about the future of liberal arts education, As stated in our earlier comments on this subject, we believe that the pursuit of academic excellence is the first mission of the College, and everything the College does must consciously advance that mission, We support the concept of embedding the core values of liberal arts education in all parts of the university because we see it as a facet of promoting academic excellence, Nevertheless, the two are not the necessarily the same thing, Indeed, it is not hard to imagine that some members of the College community would define liberal arts education in a way that makes academic excellence a secondary consideration or subservient to other goals,

In our conversation last October, there was some frustration expressed at the Society's repeated emphasis on academic excellence, the suggestion being that our expression of concern on this point means that the Society does not believe the College is currently setting or reaching high enough standards, It was also suggested that our emphasis on academic excellence was in fact merely aimed at the College's "diversity" goals, This is a complex and multifaceted question, which we only attempt to summarize here,

First, our emphasis on academic excellence is intended to ensure that what we see as one of the key achievements and characteristics of the College is not inadvertently deemphasized, It has been said that "an organization only does well those things that the boss checks," The College as an institution can certainly have more than one goal- but if the pursuit of other priorities causes the institution to lose sight of the central purpose of its existence, then it will have failed, Indeed, anyone familiar with the behavior of large bureaucratic organizations, or the extensive economic literature on the subject, knows that it is very easy for parochial concerns to take over and larger purposes to be forgotten, or given only lip service, So it is not enough to say that academic excellence is at the heart of the strategic plan, or doesn't
need to be mentioned because "we are all about academic excellence," when it is only referred to indirectly, if at all. Even if the mention is redundant or repetitive, it needs to be made,

Second, if pursuing other priorities - including, but not limited to, "diversity" -puts academic excellence at risk, then those priorities need to be reevaluated and perhaps deemphasized, A generation ago, the College made what was then a difficult decision regarding the level at which it would compete in intercollegiate football. One of the reasons for that decision was the recognition that a change in priorities would affect the character of the institution in a number of ways, the centrality of academic excellence being one of them. We believe that most people would agree that that decision has proven to be a good one. The College must always be prepared to reevaluate policies and practices to make sure they advance its fundamental purpose.

Third, we wish to say again that we have no doubt that it is possible to get a first class education at William & Mary, and that many students do. But we are concerned that this is as much a product of the talent, drive, and focus of those particular students as anything else. For the student who arrives uncertain about his or her goals, or who pursues studies in a department with lax standards or vague course requirements, a first class education is certainly not assured. This is not a problem unique to William & Mary, by any means. But we believe that more can be done to help students help themselves.' We hope that the conversation about the future of liberal arts education will in fact lead to a curriculum review, and that that review will consider several issues. First, the Society believes that the current GER system is ineffective, because too many courses qualify, and, more specifically, because too many of those courses address narrow topics that do little to ensure that students actually develop a broader and more complete understanding of the various branches of knowledge. Second, neither the GER system nor the elective system currently in place at the College does enough to ensure that students graduate with a fully-developed sense of what it means to be
a citizen in our society. Third, we are concerned that in many cases the academic advising system does not serve freshmen and sophomores very well. Fourth, we believe that many departments offer large numbers of courses but too little structure to guide course selection. Good advising may help - but that presumes that every student has and takes full advantage of such a resource. In summary, we are concerned that the result of the current system is that too many students graduate with a passing familiarity with a broad range of topics, but never master any of them. They may have obtained excellent instruction in some of those courses, and exposure to a breadth of disciplines is certainly part of a liberal arts education - but a
liberal arts education also presumes some measure of structure and depth.

Fourth, we think it is important to maintain W&M's tradition of high grading standards. We believe that grades and grading standards matter, not least because attitudes towards them are at the core of institutional culture. Unfortunately, we have reason to believe that standards may have not be as high as they have been, although standards and attitudes towards grading certainly vary significantly from professor to professor and department to department.' Thus, there is no assurance of academic rigor in many courses. Students benefit from strict standards, because high standards encourage them to work harder and when they work harder they learn more. Even though some believe that they may be disadvantaged in applying to graduate school or for employment - and perhaps they will be disadvantaged - if one believes in academic excellence, one must believe that they still benefit. If grades don't matter, or are an impediment to future success, perhaps they should be abolished or all students automatically given As. While the Society has no access to an objective measurement of average grades at the College, or a means to compare them to grades at comparable institutions, it is difficult to claim that academic excellence is at the core of the institution's goals if the importance of maintaining standards is not appreciated and communicated to the College community. This is undoubtedly a difficult problem to address, and in many ways is an unending battle, but we think that appropriate statements from appropriate members of the administration would be valuable signals of what the College values.

In any event, we support the concept of discussing the future of liberal arts education, and look forward to the opportunity to provide further comment on this topic, including matters related to the curriculum.

Interdisciplinary issues. In principle, we support multi-disciplinary studies, but at the undergraduate level they should not be promoted at the expense of focus and mastery. In any case, such issues should certainly be addressed in the scope of the conversation about the future of liberal arts and any curriculum review.

Internationalization. We have many questions about the College's apparently growing emphasis on "internationalization." We do not fully understand what this entails or the motivations behind it. We have briefly reviewed the interim report submitted by the Presidential Advisory Committee on May 6, 2008, and it raises more questions than it answers. Based on that report, it seems that internationalization has been a long-standing policy of the College, and yet remains undefined. We are concerned with the pursuit of a policy that may distract students, faculty, and administrators from more fundamental priorities. While we can certainly see the value of broadening and strengthening the College's reputation and contacts in particular fields, at the same time, introducing internationalization as a significant element in the undergraduate curriculum merely because "we now live in a global world" strikes us as faddish and counterproductive. Once again, our fundamental concerns go to the question of whether "internationalization" truly advances academic excellence.

Goal 2: Provide more robust support for teaching, research, scholarship, and creative activities.

We support this goal, but have no basis for comment on the two implementation steps.

Goal3: Support innovative models of teaching, research, and academic collaboration.

We support this goal, but have no basis for comment on most of the implementation steps. Please see our comments on internationalization, above.

Provide appropriate support jor the Office of Community Engagement and Scholarship. We have expressed our views on the new community service minor in the past, and won't restate them here. But we must say that this new office, regardless of the alleged academic content of the new minor, seems to reflect academic political faddism more than a concern with actual academic quality. This is precisely the sort of initiative that we think brings the College's commitment to academics into question. We note, for example, that one of the students whose activities are advertised on the new office's Webpage majored in "Studies of American Inequality." Another student was apparently awarded a degree in "Social Justice and Community Advocacy." With all due respect to the efforts of those students, these titles are political statements, not academic disciplines. We believe that it is entirely inappropriate for an academic institution to award degrees with such patently political content. To write a thesis on "American Inequality" Is one thing. To be granted a degree in the subject is something else entirely, because by elevating the subject to the level of a major one confers on the major the dignity of an academic discipline, and academic disciplines are supposed to be objective categories of study. There is nothing objective about this kind of major.

Please do not misunderstand us: we fully support civic engagement on the part of William & Mary students. We certainly do not think the College should prevent students from engaging in such activities. But neither do we think that the College's limited financial resources should be spent organizing trips abroad or to various parts of the country to allow students to participate in community service. There is any number of religious and charitable groups around the country that organize such activities. If a student wants to participate with such independently organized groups over spring break or in the summer, that is entirely appropriate. But the College is an institution of higher education, not a social service agency.

Nor is there any conflict between our views on this subject and comments we have made in the past in support of the ROTC. The College does not award degrees in Military Science, and there is no Military Science minor, even though one could argue that the subject matter of that activity is well defined and can be objectively studied. Although the College provides a certain level of administrative support to the Military Science department, it does not pay the salaries of the ROTC cadre at the college, who are paid by the Army. And finally, students at the College who wish to serve as Army officers do not have other alternatives - there are no churches or other private organizations making the same training available.

Challenge 2: Build and support a more fully diverse W&M community.

We understand that the emphasis on diversity in the Strategic Plan arises from a decision to apply the principles upheld in the Supreme Court's decision in Grutter v. Michigan, which endorsed the concept of "diversity" as a goal in university admissions. This is not the place for an analysis or critique of Grutter, and we fully understand that nothing we might say here is likely to dissuade the College from pursuing its diversity goals. Nevertheless, a few observations are in order, because we believe that placing such a nebulous concept as "diversity" at the center of the Strategic Plan poses a serious threat to the intellectual integrity of the College. We are fully aware that many other leading institutions have adopted similar goals, and our comments apply equally to them.

Our first concern is the lack of transparency that surrounds the subject of diversity and the College's goals. The College has not defined "diversity," and the administration apparently has no specific goals or standards for measuring diversity - only that "we will know it when we see it." Indeed, it is one of the ironies of the Grutter decision that to attempt to define diversity with any specificity would probably violate the law, or at least open the College up to a charge of unlawful discrimination. The Supreme Court has effectively told universities that they may discriminate on the basis of race, as long as they aren't too obvious about it. Of course, we understand the historical and political reasons for this effort. We recognize that the College Is trying to find a way to deal with certain long-standing inequities. But we think that it is not the responsibility of the College to remedy every societal III, nor Is it within the College's competency to do so, Indeed, it bears mention that nothing in Grutter requires the College to make diversity a goal. It is the College's responsibility to uphold academic standards, however, and that the College is competent to do, If the College cannot define diversity, and cannot forthrightly explain what it is trying to do, and why, and how, then the College should ask itself whether it is engaged in an endeavor suitable to an institution dedicated to the pursuit and dissemination of the truth,

One point worth noting, to illustrate how ephemeral is the entire notion of "diversity," is the fact that the College's benchmark survey reports that 13% of students identify themselves as "Race/ethnicity unknown," This is a large number, and if the College is serious about diversity, it would seem to be important to know who these students are, The answer is especially important, because Grutter itself requires "serious, good faith consideration of workable race-neutral alternatives that will achieve the diversity the university seeks," Grutter also states that "[n]arrow tailoring, ' , requires that a race-conscious admissions program not unduly harm members of any racial group, Even remedial race-based governmental action generally remain subject to continuing oversight to assure that it will work the least harm possible to other innocent persons competing for the benefit. . . . . To be narrowly tailored, a race-conscious admissions program must not unduly burden individuals who are not members of the favored racial and ethnic groups," How can the College effectively pursue diversity goals - in the process perhaps harming some applicants - when it does not know the race or ethnicity of one-eighth of the student body? It seems unlikely that 13% of students are of mixed race - in all honesty, we think it is far more likely that they have elected not to identify themselves because they see no benefit in doing so, But are they white students who object to racial classification? Are they Asian students, afraid that they represent the wrong kind of "diversity"? Or are they African Americans who want to be evaluated on the content of their character and academic distinction? And what if an increasingly large proportion of students refuses to categorize itself? Will the College then investigate and classify those students who refuse to classify themselves? It seems to us, based on the information available, that the College's initiative, however well-intentioned, is fundamentally and incurably flawed, Of course, we know little about the plans, goals, or underlying facts, and perhaps we are mistaken, The Society would certainly welcome further open and honest discussion of this topic, along with access to relevant data,

We must also note that Grutter only held that diversity was permissible in the context of determining the composition of the student body, Yet nothing in the Strategic Plan suggests that the College's unstated diversity goals are limited to the composition of the student body, To the contrary: it now seems that "diversity" - whatever it means -- is an unmitigated good in all things, except perhaps in the realm of ideas, We are aware of nothing in the Strategic Plan that states that the College sees diversity of opinion among students or faculty as a goal of its diversity efforts, Were the College publicly to state that diversity in the political views of the faculty was a goal, and to pursue steps calculated to achieve that goal, we might be more willing to accept that the institution's commitment to "diversity" in all things was legitimate,

Our second fundamental concern is with academic standards, Once again, we understand the historical and political reasons behind the goal. And we understand that the College receives applications from far more prospective students than It can admit, and will always be taking a variety of factors into consideration when deciding whom to admit. While one might, for example, rank students purely on the basis of their SAT scores, we appreciate that admissions decisions have never turned on such purely quantitative factors, We agree that the College should continue to have discretion in admissions decisions. But we do not agree that academic quality should be sacrificed, especially in the service of undefined and apparently undefinable goals.

We have been told that the admissions office has stated that every student who is admitted is fully qualified to attend the College. All of our reservations notwithstanding, we might be able to accept the College's position if we were confident that the latter were true. Indeed, we would be delighted to be proven wrong. If academic standards are not being compromised to achieve other ends, and every student who is admitted is fully qualified, and students are admitted based on a range of factors designed to produce a well-rounded student body, then so be it - some qualified students will be turned away, but their places will be taken by equally qualified applicants. Nevertheless, this begs the question of what the admissions office considers qualified. How wide a range of qualifications is acceptable? How do students who are admitted in the name of achieving diversity stack up? How would the overall quality of the student body be altered if the College were not seeking to advance diversity? Would the College become more selective, or less? We do not know the answers to these questions, because we do not have access to the relevant data. Without access to that type of information, open and honest discussion of this issue is not possible.

Goal l: Better coordinate and encourage W&M's diversity initiatives.

It seems to us that the College does not need to raise diversity to any higher priority than it already has. We see no need for establishing a senior leadership position for this purpose.

Goal 2: Ensure a welcoming and supportive campus.

What is meant by the implementation step that states "Assess programs and services that assist students with college success, and reallocate funds as needed"? We certainly agree that the campus should be welcoming and supportive, and we appreciate that some students especially those from lower income backgrounds - may not always feel comfortable in the social setting at the College. But we do believe care has to be taken with these kinds of issues: it is essential that all members of the student body be integrated into the larger community. Programs and policies that are intended to "support" certain individuals or groups should not foster division, separation, or the creation of alternative communities divorced from the rest of the college community.

The Society is also unalterably opposed to any program that amounts to remedial instruction. There is no place for remedial instruction of any kind at William & Mary, and any such program is antithetical to the principle that all who are admitted are fully qualified. The College cannot consider itself a first-tier institution if it is admitting students who need special help meeting academic standards. If this is what this implementation step is intended to address, it is a mistake.

Goal3: Increase the diversity of the student body, faculty and staff.

Assess feasibility of pre-collegiate programs to include students from under-represented groups. We are not sure what this entails; presumably, the College is considering using existing summer programs for high school students as a recruiting tool for "under-represented groups." The Society would not object to this practice, and it would in fact dovetail with our own proposal for identifying highly qualified students and finding ways to introduce them as early as possible to the College.

Evaluate steps to expand graduate and professional school student recruitment from underrepresented groups. Our comments above, stating our general concerns regarding diversity efforts, apply to this proposed step.

Evaluate alternative ways to increase the number of international undergraduate students. We do not understand at all why this is a priority. In fact, given the large number of foreign born students already residing in Virginia and nearby states, many of whom may be fully qualified to attend the College, we do not think this step is of significant value.

Review diversity of faculty at other universities by academic discipline and evaluate areas where W&M representation is less diverse. Everything we have said about undergraduate admissions and diversity applies to faculty hiring as well. The College's first mission is to recruit, hire, and retain the finest faculty possible, purely on the basis of academic merit. We note again that the Supreme Court's decision in Grutter applies only to the creation of a diverse student body.

Goal 4: Encourage diverse curricular offerings and ways of teaching.

Given the large number of course offerings, majors, and special programs at the College, we think that there is probably ample diversity in curricular offerings and ways of teaching. We don't know what is meant by considering "how our academic programs appeal to all members of the faculty and student body and the appropriate role of global perspectives, experiences and opportunities." It sounds like a vehicle for fomenting criticism of the existing curriculum on the grounds that it is insufficiently "inclusive." To put it another way, it sounds like an invitation to water down the curriculum and lower standards generally. Nor do we know what is meant by "evaluating steps to support diversity through enhanced Swem Library collections." The library should exist to support the academic needs of the institution.

Goal 5: Highlight our commitment to diversity in our communications.

We have nothing to add on this point.

Challenge 3: Lifelong commitment.

Goal 1: Forge lifelong relationships with W&M.

The Society is itself proof of the importance of this goal. And we are heartened by the appreciation for tradition identified by the 2004-2005 Student Internal Culture Audit. We know nothing about the "W&M for a Lifetime" campaign, but we believe that efforts to create community must be centered on and related to the actual goals and characteristics of the institution, as well as the inclinations of the student body. The Wren Building and activities tied to the Wren Building are classic examples: they matter to students In part because they link them to centuries of tradition.

Goal 2: Increase collective identity.

We support this goal, but have no basis for comment on the two implementation steps. We do, however, have two comments regarding the goal. First, we urge that the collective identity to be promoted consciously center on the College as a community of scholars. As the 2004-2005 Student Internal Culture Audit found, "Learning is valued and central to the student culture," and "there is a culture of seriousness among our students." This is very heartening to the Society, and we hope it remains as true in 2010 as it was five years ago. Second, it is difficult to exalt both diversity and a common identity. The Society would prefer that diversity not be elevated in the way that it has in the strategic plan, for the reasons set forth above. But if it must be a factor, it must be carefully defined and understood; otherwise, it will degenerate into division along ideological or ethnic lines. There can be no doubt that this has happened at other institutions. This makes it all the more important to promote a culture of academic excellence, in which admissions and hiring decisions are made solely on the basis of merit: Whatever other criteria the College may choose to apply in these decisions, there must never be any doubt that all students and faculty are fully qualified on the basis of academic distinction. On this point, we refer you to Justice Thomas's concurring opinion in Grutter.

Attempts to increase collective identity that disregard or deny the reasons that students chose to attend the institution will fail, or ultimately undermine the sense of collective identity that already exists. And such attempts that are seen as phony or contrived will also fail. If this is not already being done, it might be useful to conduct a study of incoming freshmen, asking them specifically what characteristics attracted them to apply to the College, and to enroll. This strikes us as very important information, which could be gathered as part of orientation, and used to advance this goal.

Goal 3: Create a community that values life in balance.

We support this goal, but have no basis for comment on the implementation steps.

Goal 4: Improve the campus residential experience.

We support the specific plans identified here, as they seem aimed at ensuring that every student who desires to live on campus will have that opportunity, and at maintaining the close, residential character of the undergraduate institution. But we urge the Administration to be wary of development that might change the nature of the residential experience by altering the nearby environment in other ways. The College benefits from a particular sense of community - which reinforces the academic orientation of that community -- precisely because of the limited options offered by the current environment. There are plenty of typical college towns, and we see no need to create another.

Challenge 4: Implement a new financial model.

Goal 1: Increase revenue to sustain current excellence and support evolving priorities.

Goal 2: Become more efficient and entrepreneurial.

Goal 3: Increase the effectiveness and transparency of how resources are allocated.

The Society certainly supports each of these goals, although we are not equipped to comment on the specific steps that have been proposed. We congratulate the Administration on its ability to consistently do more with less. We note that in the benchmark comparison, the Planning Steering Committee found that the College has maintained competitive student-faculty ratios in part by restricting the growth of administrative and managerial staff. This is not only praiseworthy, but should be retained as a long-term goal. Even as economic conditions improve and as the College's finances strengthen over time, every effort must be made to limit administrative overhead. This should be not just a matter of fiscal discipline or temporary necessity but of over-arching philosophy: too often an organization will succumb to the temptation to add administrative staff that simply adds too little value to the goals of the institution. The College must be vigilant and diligent in fighting against this kind of counter-productive organizational imperative.

Challenge 5: Provide the administrative resources and infrastructure required for a university in the 21" Century.

Goal 1: Engage, support and retain a workforce appropriate to our mission.

Goal 2: Build a robust, dynamic campus IT infrastructure.

Goal 3: Improve the condition of current facilities.

Goal 4: Provide the buildings, classrooms, laboratories and other learning spaces needed by a 21" Century university.

Goal 5: Provide a safe and secure environment.

Goal 6: Enhance the appearance of the College

Goal 7: Improve sustainable operations.

Once again, the Society supports each of these goals, although we are not equipped to comment on the specific steps that have been proposed, and we again caution against initiatives that increase administrative burdens without sufficiently advancing more fundamental priorities.

Challenge 6: Communications.

Goal 1: Distill and promote a common identity.

This is an admirable goal, which we support strongly. The four implementation steps (website roll-out, identifying communications themes, recommending roles for university leadership, and mascot selection) are all important. We hope that our comments as a whole may be helpful in identifying particular communications themes. We regret to say that the mascot choices do not seem to have been well-received. Finally, we hasten to repeat the observations we made earlier regarding strengthening the collective identity: such efforts should emphasize the college as a community of scholars, and recognize the contradiction inherent in trying to exalt both diversity and a common identity.

Goal 2: Enhance W&M's position among the notion's leading universities.

The implementation steps here are: assisting units in publicity efforts, increasing coverage of research, scholarship and creative activities in targeted media, and highlighting exceptional W&M achievers. We believe much more can be done here: too many see UVA as the Commonwealth's "flagship" institution. This is one reason why we have stressed the importance of academic quality so insistently - there should be no doubt that the premier academic institution in Virginia is William & Mary. Even within the Commonwealth, too many students with strong academic records do not consider W&M when applying to college. We believe the College is perceived by many potential applicants, and by the public at large, as smaller and more limited in its range of academic majors than it really is. And because the College does not compete as visibly in intercollegiate sports as UVA and Tech, it does not get as much general press attention as other schools. This means that the College must work harder to get the word out.

We believe that another issue that should be addressed - and that we do not see in any of the implementation steps -- is improving the efforts of the admissions office to recruit top students of all backgrounds. We believe that the College may have been complacent in recruitment in the past, resting on its reputation as a "Public Ivy." Because the College gets a high number of qualified applicants who are attracted by in-state tuition, it may not have felt as much pressure as it might otherwise to attract such applicants; it is our perception that many private schools make more of an effort to actively recruit students, and this may be something for the College to consider.

Goal 3: Develop an integrated, appropriate communications capability.

We hope that our comments as a whole may be helpful as part of the comprehensive review of communications and marketing to be completed in February 2010.

* * *

In closing, thank you once again for this opportunity to offer our thoughts on this most important subject. While the Society may not always view the issues that face William & Mary from the same perspective as the administration, we know we are all seeking to improve the College and ensure its continued success. We hope you find our suggestions helpful as William & Mary moves into the future.

On behalf of the Board of Directors:
Andrew McRoberts, '87, President
Susan de la Cruz Adams, '81, Treasurer
Susan Briggs Eley, '57, '62, Secretary
Nancy Fehn Booth, '58
Will Coggin, '07
Paul Davies, Ph.D.
Barbara Turner Grant, '59
Robert G. Jones, '72
Jennifer Souers, '10
Del Wilson, '57

1 For example, students would benefit from the opportunity to see detailed syllabi, including general descriptions of the subject matter of each lecture, as part of the registration process.
2 We refer in particular to information available at which indeed suggests William & Mary's standards have declined. We have no way of verifying the accuracy of that information - but if true, this is something to be corrected, rather than simply declared to be unfortunate and then ignored.