Washington, DC Town Hall Meeting
10-11-06
Report by Jen Preston, ‘95

People at the meeting:
About 100 people were in the room including
Ginger Worden ‘69
Heather Garnett ‘86
Jolley Bruce Christman ’69 President of BOT
Peter Dean, Trustee
Vellie Dietrich-Hall Trustee
Susan Fant ’84 Trustee
Skip Kughn

There were also at least two former trustees at the meeting
Mary Jean Lindner ‘48
Anne Lindner Morrison ‘83

There were several other people mentioned but I didn’t catch their names.

There are 18 meetings planned where Ginger, Skip and Heather will attend and 18 more where faculty and senior staff will represent the school. There might be others that hasn’t been determined yet.

Ginger spoke for about 30-40 minutes outlining what comes next for the college in the co-ed solution. She mainly focused on the transition process and the future of the new school. She also hoped this would be the beginning of getting alumnae to reconnect with the school.

She did start with a short summary of what happened on 9/9/06 and what happened on campus after, including the student strikes. At some point the students sat down with the Administration (Dean of the College (DOC)/Dean of Students (DOS)/Ginger/Lucy Hooper ’73 Trustee/Janis Ansell ’67, President of Alumnae Association). The students made their demands for what they wanted which was is essence a second opinion. The administration couldn’t give them that but did bring both the finance experts and representatives from A&S to campus for students and alumnae to ask questions of.

Ginger acknowledged that the school is asking quite a bit of alumnae because we’re changing both our identity and our name.

Much of her talk discussed the 6 implementation groups that have been created and that they would like alumnae involvement with (although this hasn’t happened to date – at least some of the groups are up and running but alumnae haven’t gotten involved yet).
The 6 groups are:
Curriculum
Recruitment/Retention
Co-education/Campus Life
Marketing/Branding
Business Plan
Alumnae Participation

Campus Life and Coeducation: This will be a group made up mainly of students and DOS staff members. They will be meeting with and visiting Wheaton and Wells Colleges to have the opportunity to ask questions. The former Head of Episcopal School (a formally all male school in Northern VA) will also be participating to give his perspective from the other side (all male going co-ed). A goal that Ginger stressed several times was that we need to learn to respect men while keeping women’s voices strong. Gender studies will be more important as well. One idea Ginger mentioned was a Randolph-Macon Woman’s Center that might have something to do with gender issues – this is just an idea at this point.

Men’s Sport Teams: Fall 07 – Basketball, Cross Country, Soccer, Tennis. Women will also get a new Cross Country team. Fall 08 – Swimming, Lacrosse. Women will also get a lacrosse team and this will require a new field. New coaches are also necessary but they’ve found a few who can coach multiple teams – a rare thing.

Curriculum: Global Honors – Platforms studied came from A&S. She discussed all the global and great leadership programs we have now (Quillian Scholar, Davenport leadership program) and that we have students from 47 countries. The faculty will take the lead on this group because they “own” the curriculum. Some ideas they’ve already given her include a school of Diplomacy and Peace Studies (as a BA and post-grad program), cross cultural experiences.

Cathy King ’95 wrote this summary of what they said about Global Honors and I think she summarized some other aspects which are important: She did spend some time discussing "Global Honors" with concrete examples of possible... what's the word I'm looking for?.... possible methods, I guess; you can't really call them "curricula." For instance, one option suggested that the global studies could begin by giving students a firm foundation and sense of place/responsible stewardship/ ability to effect change in Lynchburg, and then branch out from there. One means of establishing this sense of place would be to group new students into teams of ten (for example), have them study a document related to Lynchburg history, then go to the places where the events happened and talk to people or descendents of people involved. Pretty good idea, actually, and you've got to wonder why no one has tried it yet...

Marketing/Branding: Obviously the name issue is a big deal. Randolph Macon College (RMC) in Ashland has made it clear to the naming committee that if we use the phrase Randolph-Macon in our name they will take any and all legal measures to force us to change the. According to Ginger the case law supports their claim. She mentioned later in the Q&A session that they already have rights to Randolph-Macon University so that isn’t an option other. Ginger also compared our name changing process to what women go through when they get married and take their husband’s name. The two names that have been discussed right now are Conway or Quillian College. Dr. D’Entremont has done research on Randolph and Macon and they aren’t necessarily men we’d want to be named after. He wasn’t confortable with the research being put on the website but the school will share it if you call and ask. Conway on the other hand was apparently a progressive leader. Quillian is after our former President.

They want a name that echoes our heritage and aspirations.

The other groups weren’t discussed. Ginger ended her part of the evening by again encouraging the alumnae to get involved in the process. They want the new school to have a robust future rather than managing the decline that is what the BOT would have done without the co-ed decision.

After Ginger finished her talk we had a lengthy Q&A session. [My notes get a little messy at this point so if others have additional information please let me know and I’ll add it in and send it out to everyone.]

The first question was asked by Cathy King – I’ve included her summary of her question, Ginger’s response and her follow up research: I asked how the opening of Founders College would affect us as basically another liberal arts institution in the same area. Ginger said that if it was the new school being opened by that group from Duke (which I think it is), that it was for-profit and based on the philosophies of Ayn Rand (which I had to look up since I never studied it), and therefore very different from us. Having now looked up the philosophies of Ayn Rand, I have to say I agree with the statement that it's very different from the global "Peace and Diplomacy Studies" discussed at the meeting. (Quick refresher: "Objectivism" believes that the achievement of personal happiness is the highest moral goal, and the hero of objectivism is the person who neither gives nor receives anything which is not deserved. Kinda sounds like the current American Way, and doesn't leave a lot of room for community, if you ask me). I will also add that Ginger also mentioned that RMWC has a heritage that Founders College will be lacking so that isn’t a big concern.

Ginger was asked whether viable Professional or technical programs would be a good addition to our liberal arts mission. The same alumna also asked for more information about marketing. Ginger said no to professional/technical programs because it would hurt our student/faculty ratio. North Charles Marketing is our new marketing company. Our goal is to figure out what our distinguishing features are and that’s what we must market.

It was pointed out (I’m not sure by who) that we shouldn’t try to be who we aren’t but we should instead focus on what we are.

Martha Lisle ’55 asked why the school sent out name change request before the vote (and got a round of applause for this). Ginger and Jolley defended this by saying that the BOT released the plan to the faculty in early August. But before that happened Ginger insisted that the BOT agree that this was the right plan before it was released. The strategic plan was then released the alumnae on 8/8 in draft format. So in their minds the decision had already been made so asking for our help finding a new name wasn’t pre-emptive in their minds.

Later in the evening it was pointed out (I think by Susan Fant) that the BOT waited for the vote until the students returned to campus because that is what they asked for at the February Forum. I was at the February Forum and remember the students asking for that but I think it was because they wanted to be involved with the process not just so they could be on campus for the vote. So the fact that the decision was already made before the students returned appears to contradictory.

Another alumnae asked about how much we paid A&S. Jolley said the entire process cost about $700K including about $600K that went to A&S (the rest included alumnae mailings). The $600K is for both rounds of studies and about half of that figure was paid by the BOT personally. I was always under the impression that the BOT paid for A&S in their entirety so I’m not sure who paid for the rest (the school maybe?)

Meg McGuire ’65 asked about the school’s due diligence in the process. She also asked about what money the school will tap into now that they haven’t been able to before and what is going to make the new school competitive. Ginger and Jolley spoke about what we can do better and differently. She mentioned that we are a progressive institution in the South with an international connection. We are still a strong institution which is important to our identity. As for sources of new funding they said that we have big donors that we haven’t been able to tap into because they believe women’s colleges aren’t viable so we can now tap into them. We will also be eligible to new grants because we’ll be able to get our enrollment over 1,000 . Some grants are available to smaller schools.

Tad Lindner – husband of Mary Jane Lindner ’48 asked several questions (as background Mary Jane is a former RMWC Trustee and Tad is a former George Washington University Trustee and their daughter Anne is a former trustee as well). He told Ginger and Jolley they had abdicated the mission of the school. He also had a lot of questions that he’s apparently been trying to get answers to since August and still hasn’t received a straight answer. He also told them he believed there was a rush to judgment and that not enough had been done to get the alumnae fully involved.

Ginger and Jolley stated that our financial situation is such a problem that it could affect accreditation if they don’t take measures to correct it. They said later that financial sustainability is a core piece of the accreditation process and a 7% draw on the endowment is too high and must be lowered – we’ll be reaccredited In 5 years they believe. They mentioned that 3 alumnae sons had visited the campus as prospective students (Tad had said that part of the reason that W&L and others had gone co-ed is because fathers wanted their daughters to attend but that he didn’t know of any women that wanted their sons to attend). Jolley also acknowledged that going co-ed isn’t a silver bullet but part of a package to make the school strong.

Ginger did mention the 9 students who have sued the school to delay the co-ed process and the alumnae were involved in the lawsuit. She said that one of the goals of the lawsuit was to make the admissions process as difficult as possible. She also said that alumnae are making it difficult because we’re going to college fairs and encouraging prospective students to NOT stop at the RMWC table.

Ginger in no uncertain terms said that the school is going to adopt the strategic plan. Rather than deter the process either support it or get out of the way.

She also indicated that they are willing to bring the experts to DC to try and convince us that the BOT is right but don’t ask for this if it won’t matter because its expensive and she started to ask us to again trust the BOT but stopped herself mid thought.

She also said that despite rumors to the contrary A&S has never before recommended that a school go co-ed – we’re the first.

She said delaying the implementation is impossible because students either want co-ed or single sex and not both – so its impossible to recruit women to a single sex school telling them that at some point it will go co-ed.

Someone asked about transferring students – apparently our retention rate is 61% and our discount rate is 62% and that many of those who are looking to transfer are on full ride scholarships and not paying us money anyway. She also commented that Agnes Scott has waived their residency requirement for our students and what does that say about their space in dorms (rhetorical question on her part). The #1 reason first years come is for financial aid.

From what their (not sure if they are A&S or the school’s internal research) has indicated they expect 25-50 men next year. They expect that number to be pretty stable for the next few years. But what they also believe will happen is the number of women applying will increase if we [alumnae] don’t sabatoge the process.

Someone asked about the student/faculty ratio and how that will change with all these new students and apparently we have excess capacity and we won’t have problems with our ratio until we hit 1,000 students.

The Maier – Ginger wants to get the art back into the life of the college ie not have it just in the museum. But she’s willing to listen if there is a convincing reason why it should stay in the museum. She also discussed the selling of art to be used for such things as scholarships and externship sounding opportunities with museums and galleries in NYC for example. Apparently we have quite a few pieces that are in storage constantly (I don’t know exactly how those 2 thoughts are related – we’ll sell the pieces that aren’t even on show or we’ll sell the valuable pieces and replace them with the storage pieces? That wasn’t ever made clear)

There was more discussion about how we can remain a feminist institution with men on campus. We can still have the respect and close relationships that we’re used to and what we all treasure.

Someone asked about how Sweet Briar, Hollins and Mary Baldwin are doing OK if we’re not. They questioned whether they can be successful longterm and a Hollins alumna in the audience stood up and defended Hollins saying they are doing just fine despite what Ginger and Jolley were saying.

The Davenport Leadership Program will remain for women only.

Since we can’t keep RM as part of our name perhaps we can get a RMWCenter or something to keep the name alive.

Reading is still undecided – no guarantees it will fit into our global honors plan – not definitely selling it but not definitely keeping it.

Questions about the endowment were asked – from 2001-03 we lost 1/3rd of our endowment – due in part to our investments and also our high spending rate. Our endowment was rebalanced after the lost and doing much beter now.

Someone asked what other options A&S looked at and what types of trends did they come up with. Jolley said that their research was statistical data only and they didn’t look at trends.

They believe that the interest in single sex education in secondary schools actually hurts us because that makes it harder to recruit.

We spend a lot of money to recruit students – if you take all the money that they spend on recruiting (successful and not successful) and divide it by the number who do enroll it works out to $8,000 per enrolled student.

Someone asked if the loss in alumnae giving was taken into consideration – they said they looked at what other colleges lost and added even more to account for the name change and they hope that they accounted for losing alumnae giving enough.

Several times again people started asking questions about financials and the like and finally they had to say that they wanted this meeting to be about looking forward but they realize now that the alumnae aren’t ready for that yet. Ginger also acknowledged at some point in the evening that she realized her comments are more loaded than she realized and in ways that she never realized.

The last question was about what they would do if we were a co-ed school in the same situation and they said that wasn’t looked at. All A&S looked at was the single sex issue because that is what the marketplace says our problem is.

I’m sure there are questions I’ve missed and may have accredited comments that Ginger said to Jolley and vice versa because they kept taking turns and answering questions together – I hope that doesn’t create problems for anyone.