Making Contact:

The History of W&L's All-Student Speakers Committee

by Joshua Heslinga

Known Contact Speakers | Known Contact Budgetary History Known Past Chairs

It seems as though a headline appears each week in the student newspapers recounting some new fraternity scandal. Faculty members profess shock and dismay. Students involved react by attacking the faculty's lack of respect for student autonomy, citing some perceived violation in the investigative or judicial procedures by which events came to light. The rest of the student body just laughs and shakes its head. The occasional trustee even writes a strongly-worded letter to the student newspapers, warning that many alumni and members of the Board are growing tired of the scandals and are quickly coming to question whether "the University's values can coexist with those evidenced by the fraternities."⁽¹⁾ Whatever the truth of the allegations from both sides, it does not stretch credulity to assert that something needs to be done to stop the decline in student-faculty relations.

The "dark side of fraternities" is certainly not a new problem. Disgusting tales abound of fraternity pranks in the late 1950s (and before). In the early 1960s, matters came to a head much like they seem to be doing today. One of the ways in which students addressed faculty concerns at that time was with the creation of Contact, the all-student speakers committee dedicated to adding an intellectual side to the fraternities' image by bringing educational and entertaining speakers to campus. Over the years, Contact has weathered crises and brought an impressive list of speakers to this small town in western Virginia (see Appendix A). In recent times, it has become less of a voluntary effort by both the governmental and social leadership of the student body. Taken all together, Contact's history over the past 30 years offers insight into the character of the student body and, perhaps, a way for the fraternities to rehabilitate their image once again.

The year was 1964, and criticism from the faculty and administration had forced fraternities on the defensive. Since the late 1950s, Washington and Lee fraternities had won themselves a national reputation for grossness and a single-minded dedication to alcohol and parties. To survive, the fraternities had to rehabilitate an image that, InterFraternity Council President Art Broadus admitted, had "declined steadily over the years." In a front page article of the Ring-Tum Phi advocating faculty acceptance of a new Constitution for the IFC, Broadus stated that "An alarming number of people view the fraternity simply as a volcanic structure which erupts blatantly on the weekend and grumbles noisily throughout the remainder of the week." Unlike today's student leaders though, Broadus placed the blame for this on the fraternities, saying that they had "made little effort to erect any other public image of themselves, having adopted for the most part, a withdrawn and reactionary policy."⁽²⁾

The IFC planned to remedy this problem by creating an annual IFC Weekend, when prominent speakers would be invited to campus. They hoped this would provide an informal environment where students could learn outside the classroom. Christened "Contact," the program drew its name from its goal of bringing students into direct contact with prominent newsmakers and lesser-known experts in various fields. Contact would take the form of a weekend-long conference on a particular theme. Although the exact origin of the idea is uncertain, the members of the IFC may have seen similar programs at other colleges. In March of 1964, the Ring-Tum Phi wrote an article spotlighting Randolph-Macon's speakers and discussion weekend, named "Focus," which was intended to explore a theme surrounding problems of American life.⁽³⁾ With the close association between W&L and the surrounding colleges, it hardly seems far-fetched to think that a couple of fraternity guys might have noticed Focus and proposed a W&L equivalent.

As might be expected for a voluntarily intellectual student effort, the Faculty Committee on Lectures gave quick approval, and the IFC scheduled the first conference for the spring of 1965. They chose Blaine Brownell, a class of 1965 Kappa Sigma from Birmingham, Alabama, as chairman of the planning committee for the event. Henry Quekemeyer, a Delta Tau Delta from Roanoke, Virginia, became assistant chairman.⁽⁴⁾ Quekemeyer recalls, "We had great political weekends and great dance weekends. It seemed like if we had something dedicated to academics that it would be neat." Contact would augment the university's intellectual environment by providing a low-key, informal means of learning. "We were trying to get people to come in and throw around ideas totally out of the classroom- [in an environment] where if you asked a dumb question, you weren't penalized."⁽⁵⁾

Preparations and fund-raising began immediately for Contact's first symposium, entitled "The American Experience and its Implications for the Individual Citizen, the American Nation, and the World." In a true display of student autonomy, Contact received no funding from the university faculty or administration. Chairman Brownell stated that since the IFC developed the idea, it was their responsibility to support it after all fund-raising attempts had been made. Contact's organizers wrote letters to "foundations such as Ford and Carnegie; selected alumni known for their generosity. . . and the parents of the student body hoping that they will come to Contact's aid with financial support." Contact also received publicity from the Roanoke and Richmond newspapers.

Not content with impersonal means of communication, Brownell and his fraternity brother, Philander Claxton III, who would later serve as Contact Chairman himself, traveled to Washington in December of 1964 to solicit support and suggestions from several prominent figures, including Assistant Attorney General Burke Marshall, New York Times Washington bureau chief Thomas Wicker, Special Assistant to the President Douglas Cater, and Commissioner of Education Francis Keppel.⁽⁶⁾ Claxton's father was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State at the time, so he helped arrange these meetings, including one with former Secretary of State Dean Acheson. Although some of these figures could not come to the symposium themselves, they suggested others. These efforts ultimately paid off as Wicker and Cater wound up appearing as speakers for the first symposium.⁽⁷⁾

Students were genuinely excited about Contact's prospects, viewing it as their chance to show older observers that students could independently create a valuable opportunity for learning. The Ring-Tum Phi wrote an editorial in December of 1964 that is worth quoting at length:

Our student body is going on trial in the next few months. This trial will not, in affect, render a verdict of guilty or innocent; however, it may render a verdict even more lasting to this student body and to student bodies of the future.

The case in question will be the Interfraternity Council's proposed CONTACT Weekend. CONTACT will be an intellectual symposium for this student body. It was proposed by students. It will be run by students.

Many have said that Washington and Lee students are completely socially oriented and have no interest outside the classroom in anything which resembles an intellectual exposure. . . . When this proposal [for Contact] was passed, many members of both the faculty and administration expressed a great deal of skepticism concerning our student body's ability to actually successfully present and support a program of this nature. Many still hold this skepticism.

Therefore, it will be our job to show these skeptics that Washington and Lee students can present and support a program such as CONTACT. Until these skeptics are convinced that today's W&L student is interested in more than a "five-o'clock cocktail" or a "weekend honey," they will remain unwilling to allow us to indulge in such luxuries as the five day week, free study programs, and a lightened load of "busy work."

The burden of proof lays on our shoulders.⁽⁸⁾

Brownell recalled that Contact was exciting for both those involved in the planning and the student body as a whole because it was a student-organized, student-planned chance to bring people to W&L's campus. No similar group existed at the time, and since there were far fewer student groups at the time, Contact provided needed diversion.⁽⁹⁾ Stafford Keegin, Contact Chairman in 1967 and 1968, echoed that sentiment, commenting that Contact "added a dimension to campus life that was needed and was appreciated [by the students]."⁽¹⁰⁾ Notably, Contact achieved this by helping to alleviate Lexington's isolation, a problem that plagued W&L for 200 years prior to the construction of the Interstate highway system.

Author James Silver highlighted Contact's first speakers roster. Silver, a professor at the University of Mississippi, had just written a book titled Mississippi: The Closed Society, which attracted a considerable amount of national attention. The speech went well, drawing a full crowd at Lee Chapel, but Brownell remembers Silver increasing his nervousness with some humor. "James Silver was kind of an acerbic guy, and he made a comment [in the beginning of his speech] that he wasn't sure he wanted to come speak at something named after a cold pill [Contac]. I sat there and thought, 'Oh my gosh, I named it the wrong thing.'"⁽¹¹⁾

As the 1965-66 school year began, the student commitment to Contact remained strong, although those involved expressed a desire to change the program to broaden Contact's appeal. Phil Claxton, Brownell's special assistant for Contact's first year, became co-chairman, along with Roger Sennott. Claxton wrote in the Ring-Tum Phi that although Contact had achieved its goal of bringing interesting and provocative speakers to campus, it had failed to arouse as much student interest as was hoped, primary because "CONTACT '65 had stressed political topics rather than offering a broad program that would have been of interest to a majority of W&L students." The 1965-66 committee planned speakers from several disciplines for a symposium centered around the city and its attendant problems, such as "urban renewal, city planning, slum conditions, financial problems, and racial strife." The committee also moved the weekend from mid-March to mid-February, in the hope that students would have less work and more free time to attend the speakers.⁽¹²⁾

Once again, the Phi strongly encouraged students to attend Contact, frankly recounting the previous year's somewhat disappointing start and ascribing responsibility to both Contact and the student body. The Phi wrote that although Dr. James Silver attracted a capacity crowd in Lee Chapel, "the five other speakers exerted themselves for the handful of persons who attended their speeches." The editorial called the first year's theme "a nebulous and ambiguous potpourri" but placed most of the blame on the student body, saying that Lee Chapel's seats should have been filled both out of "common courtesy" to the speakers and out of the student responsibility to make use of the money spent and help Contact succeed. In short, the Phi called the turnout "a sad commentary on both the principle of CONTACT and the Washington and Lee Student body." It looked to the second year's weekend as a test of whether Contact and the student body "has matured."⁽¹³⁾

The most immediate problem Contact's organizers faced in developing the 1965-66 event centered on fund-raising, a concern to this day for Contact. One week prior to its symposium, the Ring-Tum Phi reported that Contact faced an operational deficit of $1500 to $1800. The 1965-66 committee started the year with nothing and succeeded in raising only about $1000 in contributions through February. This money formed about a third of what organizers estimated they needed to run the weekend successfully. The Phi noted two suggestions made to cover the deficit. The first proposed that all fraternity members ask their parents to donate five dollars to Contact, enough to cover the 1965-66 expenses and to leave a surplus to aid in organizing the 1966-67 event. The second suggestion called for an assessment of $100 per fraternity, to be raised from the individual members.⁽¹⁴⁾

After the symposium, IFC Chairman John Griffin, in an interview with the Ring-Tum Phi, estimated the deficit at $1500 and stated "There should be no problem collecting this money from the houses on a pro-rated basis." He went on to blame the fraternity men for not specifically asking their parents for money, although he said they still had that opportunity to lower the amount of the assessment needed. Griffin noted that the $1000 Contact did succeed in raising prior to the February event came in an average of $50 increments, meaning that only 20 people donated. He pointed out that if each set of parents contributed five dollars, Contact would receive $4000, enough to pay the deficit from the 1965-66 symposium and almost completely pay for the 1966-67 conference as well.⁽¹⁵⁾

By all accounts, the second year's symposium was a smashing success. The student body gave the event solid support in a landmark Ring-Tum Phi poll that succeeded in surveying 516 students. 61.3 percent of those surveyed had participated in the Contact weekend's activities, and 69.3 percent of that group had attended more than one lecture. More importantly for Contact, 83 percent favored continuation of Contact in future years, while just three percent recommended discontinuing the program. Students rated social critic Michael Harrington as their favorite speaker, followed by black author Claude Brown, the most prominent black speaker at W&L to that date and probably the first ever in Lee Chapel. Suggestions in the survey included holding Contact during the week, decreasing the size of the speaker panels, and focusing on more than one major subject. All of these suggestions would later be addressed in Contact's move from a one-weekend event to a year-long speaker program. Some students also requested more controversial topics. Not surprisingly for the time, U.S. foreign policy came up the most, followed by civil rights and education. Last on the list came suggestions from three students for a discussion of the weighty problem of "Sex and the Single Elephant."⁽¹⁶⁾

All of those involved in bringing the program to fruition also expressed great satisfaction. IFC President Griffin stated that the IFC had passed an amendment to its constitution in favor of continuing Contact indefinitely. Griffin also expressed the hope that turnout would eventually reach 85 percent of the student body, although he felt Contact did very well for its second year.⁽¹⁷⁾ Contact extended its notoriety all the way to New York City when speaker Michael Harrington wrote an article for the New York Herald-Tribune praising the program. Harrington wrote that Contact had given him reason to hope that "the competitiveness and the status-hunger of the American middle class will produce a new generation of college-educated idealists." He marveled that W&L, a school known for being a bastion of Southern tradition and nobility rather than any real political activism, had received his radical suggestions so well. Harrington closed by stating that he remained General Lee's "disobedient but grateful servant."⁽¹⁸⁾

Over the next two years, under the leadership of Stafford Keegin, a member of the 1968 law school graduating class, Contact broke new ground on two fronts. In 1966-67, Contact made history by hosting W&L's first outspoken civil rights speaker, James Farmer, the black former director of the Congress for Racial Equality. Prior to Contact's founding, the administration had nixed a proposal to bring Martin Luther King to W&L, but through a combination of ingenuity and boldness, Keegin and his committee succeeded in overcoming administrative resistance to a civil rights speaker. Keegin remembers attending a meeting about the possibility with a few of the school's top administrators. He described what happened as follows: "I walked in and said, 'We want to have an outspoken civil rights leader and our choice is Stokely Carmichael.' There was lots of harumphing [from the administrators], and in due time I said, 'Well, if not Stokely Carmichael, how about James Farmer?" Keegin described their reaction at that point as very supportive.⁽¹⁹⁾ Other speakers for the 1966-67 symposium, entitled "The Crumbling Establishment," included W&L graduate Tom Wolfe and former Alabama state attorney general Richmond Flowers.

In the 1967-68 school year, Contact cleared another hurdle toward independence by winning approval from the IFC to exist in the same school year as Mock Convention. In a draft of a letter to the editor dated 15 February 1968, Stafford Keegin noted that the IFC originally did not intend for Contact to exist in Mock Convention years, "for fear that it would cut into the Convention's resources." To remedy this problem, the IFC decided that Contact should act as a stage-setter for Mock Convention, limiting the topic but avoiding the potential danger of skipping an early year. With this in mind, Contact titled its 1968 symposium "What's New Pachyderm?" and focused on the future of the Republican Party. Speakers that year included former presidential candidate Barry Goldwater and political commentator Robert Novak.⁽²⁰⁾

Charges that Contact was too political cropped up again, but Keegin defended the choice of topic, citing statements from Dr. Leyburn, who had been involved in creating the first symposium, to the effect that Contact had originally been intended to focus only on the fields of politics, sociology, and economics. Keegin did, however, endorse a continued broadening of the subject matter and apologized for the lack of any non-speech events, saying that "This difficulty may be traced to the fact that politicians do very little other than talk." Keegin also defended Contact against some charges that they were ideologically biased. Although he admitted in his interview that Contact held beliefs to the left of the student body as a whole, he wrote at the time that Contact's "sole duty is to present its study in as honest a manner as possible. . . . It has no duty to balance the program for the sake of merely keeping one element or another of the student body happy."

As Contact moved into the 1970s, these charges faded because Contact moved away from a single theme. In a letter to members of the faculty dated 1 February 1972, the committee mentioned the change and advertised speakers as diverse as poet W.H. Auden, U.S. Senator William Brock, and Joseph Heller, author of Catch-22. W&L alumnus Philippe Labro also presented "the American premiere of his new motion picture, Without Apparent Motive, at the State Theater on Friday evening, February 4." While Contact did still keep its speakers within a relatively short time span for a few years, it abandoned a single theme in 1972 because its members wanted to see speakers address their interests. The committee also felt that this would broaden their appeal to the student body.

1974's Contact program deserves special mention for two particular speakers. Humorist Art Buchwald drew one of the largest crowds in Contact history, as more than 1100 people packed Doremus Gymnasium to hear his speech. Another of the year's speakers drew jeers, not laughs. William Friedkin, the director of The French Connection, was pelted with paper wads, along with the members of Contact who introduced him, while waiting to speak in front of about 650 people at the State Theater. The audience did this to voice their anger over what they saw as the harmful content contained in Friedkin's latest project, The Exorcist.

Contact's relatively smooth sailing came to an end in the fall of 1977, when the Ring-Tum Phi blasted both Contact and the Student Activities Board, accusing both of mismanaging student body funds. The Phi's banner headline cited Executive Committee Vice-President George Griffin terming Contact's use of EC-allocated money as "Deceptive." The article charged Contact with violating EC orders not to carry any money over from year to year and with spending $115 on a dinner with Bruce Jenner and his wife. Then co-chairmen Billy Webster and Walter Granruth defended the committee, asserting that the dinner was in lieu of a party they felt the committee deserved and that the held-over money was needed to operate over the summer prior to the year's EC allocation in the fall. Both the Phi and EC officers argued that Contact should have specifically requested EC approval for each action.⁽²¹⁾ In an editorial, the same issue of the Phi charged Contact and the SAB with "a gross disregard for the procedure and policy laid down by the EC concerning the use of student funds." The editorial lambasted Contact more than the SAB, terming Contact's actions "a definite misuse of student money. . . along with a little deceit." Contact's failure to inform the EC of the left-over funds drew additional fire because Contact's budget request pleaded for additional money, persuading the EC to transfer $450 from the Ariel to Contact.⁽²²⁾

EC minutes from their meeting four days after the Phi's story broke, record that the committee questioned John Bruch, Contact chairman for the 1976-77 school year. Bruch defended the dinners by saying that it was Contact's customary way of rewarding the volunteered time and effort of committee members. He also told the EC that they should leave Contact's chairmen discretion in these matters. EC member Rick Goddard called the use of Contact funds to pay for committee members' dinners and drinks "an abuse of discretion." Goddard subsequently moved that misuse of student funds be considered an honor violation, but the rest of the EC was not willing to make such a change, voting down his motion 8-1-1.⁽²³⁾

Three days later, the Phi renewed its attack. It published a long article recounting some of the back and forth between Bruch and Goddard.⁽²⁴⁾ Although the article did mention both sides on the debate over Goddard's motion, the Phi also wrote a scathing editorial condemning both Contact's actions and the EC's inaction. With respect to Contact, the Phi wrote, "The members of Contact were wrong in throwing the party without E.C. approval and in secretly keeping the leftover money from 1977. No matter how they try to justify their abuses, they will always come up wrong in the end." The editorial called Bruch's defense of the dinner "Rubbish!" and asked "Why should these [Contact] members glorify themselves and the duties for which they volunteered by throwing themselves parties financed from other people's pockets?" But the Phi reserved its harshest criticism for the EC's failure to act, saying that the EC had the power to regulate student committees and simply "failed to live up to its responsibilities." The editorial continued, "It is time the E.C. stopped being wishy-washy, stopped adhering to the 'khaki culture,' and stopped honoring corrupt traditions." The Phi closed with a call for recall petitions if the EC did not act soon.⁽²⁵⁾

In the same issue, the Phi published an article stating that the IFC was considering taking away part of its allocation to Contact because Contact did not mention the left-over money it had from the previous year when it requested funds from the IFC. 1977-78 IFC President Steve Mattesky told the Phi that he personally disapproved of dinners being held without authorization and advocated an oversight role for both the Executive Committee and the IFC. This article also cited university treasurer Louis Snyder, who said there was no activity in the Contact account between June and September, undermining Bruch's justification for rolling over the Contact funds.⁽²⁶⁾

Bruch responded with a letter to the editor charging the Phi with printing unfounded remarks and resorting to sensationalism. He defended the dinner as an "extension of generous hospitality to guest speakers which has been a hallmark of Contact and this university" and noted that previous committees had done the same. Bruch also stated that the 1976-77 President of the IFC had attended the dinner and that the president of the EC was invited. In conclusion, Bruch said that the Phi's "erroneous reporting week after week is causing the RtP to join the ranks of Hustler and Midnight Magazine." The editors answered Bruch's sensationalism charge by saying that "as long as students find it within themselves to consciously violate the student body constitution, as long as their own actions are sensational in nature, the RtP will continue to report them."⁽²⁷⁾

Following further research and testimony, the EC voted 6-4 to require committee chairmen to seek EC approval of parties before they take place. The EC also voted unanimously to split Contact's end-of-the-year balance on a percentage basis with the IFC, although the motion did agree to leave contributions from parents to Contact.⁽²⁸⁾ Two weeks later, following exact confirmation of the balances in Contact's accounts, the EC voted unanimously to reduce Contact's 1977-78 funding by approximately $590, the total amount of Contact funds provided by the EC that were left over at the end of the 1976-77 year.⁽²⁹⁾ In a final action, taken approximately 10 weeks after initial disclosure of the scandal, the EC voted unanimously to require that all subcommittee meetings be open to students until voting began. The EC allowed committees to vote in secrecy in order to preserve the element of surprise for Contact speakers and FD decisions. A motion without these exceptions failed 5-5.⁽³⁰⁾

Despite the controversy in this case, Contact dinners ultimately resumed. Because speakers typically expect dinner before their speech, the committee has, in recent years, followed a custom of paying for committee members and representatives from event co-sponsors to attend dinner with the speakers. 1996-97 Contact Chairman Catherine Bassett also repeated the argument that these dinners serve as a reward for those who do the work coordinating the speaking events. The custom of committee members having dinner with speakers reaches back to Contact's inception, as 1967-68 Contact Chairman Stafford Keegin recalled having dinner with some of that year's speakers. Controversy erupted again in 1997 surrounding the dinner for famous black director Spike Lee, although that dispute focused on who could attend the dinner rather than whether the dinner should have been held.⁽³¹⁾

Contact has occasionally sought controversy by bringing provocative speakers to campus. Tom Salley, a member of the class of 1980 who served on Contact for three years, recalls feeling a "perverse inducement to seek more flamboyant speakers" to shake things up. This inducement led some conservative committee members to favor bringing radical speakers to campus.⁽³²⁾ Scott Cardozo, Contact Chairman for 1979-81 remembers the Ring-Tum Phi's reaction to G. Gordon Liddy's appearance. The Phi castigated Contact for spending school money to bring in criminals and liars. Cardozo responded by drawing a contrast between the small audiences that showed up for Contact's literary events and the packed Lee Chapel crowd for Liddy's speech, asking simply, "Which do you want?"⁽³³⁾

Contact's content and methods remained much the same throughout the 1980s. It weathered another crisis in the form of a series of financial problems in the early to mid-1980s. During the 1983-84 school year, Contact ran up a $6000 debt. In exchange for assuming the debt along with the IFC, the EC voted to cut Contact's allocation for the next two years.⁽³⁴⁾ Amazingly, Contact failed to give a budget report later that year, and the EC adopted the following statement by a unanimous vote:

The Executive Committee expresses its extreme displeasure with the irresponsibility shown by this year's Contact Co-Chairmen, Marty Harmon and Gov Slahor. They have continually failed to submit their budget reports on time if reports were submitted at all. This situation is particularly disturbing in light of the financial problems that Contact has had this year. It is hoped that next year's E.C. will be more careful in the selection of the new Contact Co-Chairmen.⁽³⁵⁾

The statement apparently did no good, as the minutes for the 1984-85 school year record that Contact failed to make any of its three required budget reports, resulting in the committee's funds being frozen by the EC.

Contact's budgetary problems also drew a challenge to its autonomy from Michael A. Cappeto, Associate Dean of Students, during the latter part of the 1983-94 school year. Cappeto wrote a letter to the EC officers stating that the 1983-84 year was the second time in three years that Contact's officers had problems managing their funds. Without a faculty advisor, Cappeto predicted further problems in the future. He suggested rearranging Contact by absorbing them into the SAB as a sub-committee, where he could monitor their finances as advisor to the SAB. Failing that, Cappeto suggested that the EC appoint him as Contact's faculty advisor.⁽³⁶⁾ There is no evidence that the EC acted on either of Cappeto's requests, although Contact has since acquired a faculty advisor.

Contact's financial situation changed considerably in the 1990s. Since Fraternity Renaissance turned IFC thoughts inward in the early 1990s, Contact has become entirely dependent upon funding from the Executive Committee. In recognition of Contact's importance, the EC has given Contact significant increases in EC budget allocations, rising from $20,000 in 1989-90 to $45,000 in 1997-98. Given the increasing number of student groups, however, it seems doubtful that this trend can continue. Contact will likely have to pursue other sources of funding, since speaker honorariums tend to increase at a rapid rate.

The increased EC financial support has made it possible for Contact to continue to host well-known speakers in the 1990s. Journalists Hunter S. Thompson and Nat Hentoff, talk-show hosts Lt. Col. Oliver North and G. Gordon Liddy, and several elected officials have been attractive events. Contact's role as a stage-setter for Mock Convention has also continued. Most recently, Contact co-sponsored Jack Kemp, the 1996 Mock Convention kick-off speaker, along with P.J. O'Rourke and Robert Bork during the year of the convention itself.

The past two years have marked new ground for Contact. Contact had its first female chairman, Catherine Bassett, during the 1996-97 school year. That year brought Contact national attention when controversial African-American film director Spike Lee came to speak. Spike Lee shook his head and smiled as he spoke above Confederate hero Robert E. Lee's tomb in W&L's Lee Chapel, joking that he wished the bookstore were open so he could buy a Confederate flag and some Confederate songs. His humor was well-received by the crowd of over 600, many of whom waited for over an hour in a line that ran up to and down W&L's Colonnade. Lee's jokes made the AP wire and appeared as little blurbs in papers across the country. The past two years have also marked a return to some themed events, such as 1997-98's three-speaker Captive Nations Week. Earlier this year, a Contact event inspired the first protest at W&L since the Vietnam War. A November speech by right-wing former GOP presidential candidate Pat Buchanan drew demonstrators and counter-demonstrators peacefully attacking and defending Buchanan's views.

With the increased interest generated by high-profile events like Lee and Buchanan, Contact seems destined to continue in its role as the main student vehicle for sponsoring outside speakers at Washington and Lee University. Although Contact has become solely an EC venture, it still reflects some of the character and autonomy of the student body. 1997-98 Executive Committee Secretary Z. Taylor Shultz highlighted what Contact means for student autonomy in an informal conversation recently. He remarked that he had been watching television and had seen a famous speaker appear at a university in Texas, where he was introduced by the president of that university. At W&L, Shultz said, students can bring a famous speaker to campus on their own and not have to defer to the administration for the speaker's introduction.

Much like its speakers can help produce more well-rounded students, studying the history of Contact helps to produce a more well-rounded picture of recent W&L history and student life. Ironically, Blaine Brownell remarked that at the time of Contact's formation, no one anticipated that it would last as long as it has. Student interest has sustained Contact, and Contact's speaker choices and committee format will continue to reflect on the interests and character of the student body for years to come. The history of Contact suggests that the IFC would do well to begin committing some of the fraternities' resources to intellectual pursuits once again, as a way of overcoming the current student-faculty crisis and improving fraternities' image. Whatever the IFC's decision in that regard, Contact's continuation shows that fraternities once made a very positive contribution to the intellectual life of students at Washington and Lee.

Endnotes

1. Gray Castle, "Recent attitudes threaten W&L honor," The Trident, 6 May 1998, vol. 6, no. 2, p. 10.

2. Art Broadus, "Faculty Committee On Fraternities Will Review Newly-Proposed IFC Constitution This Friday," Ring-Tum Phi, 18 February 1964, vol. 64, no. 29, p. 1.

3. "Individual Ideas and Social Reality Topic of R-MWC's 1964 'Focus'," Ring-Tum Phi, 17 March 1964, vol. 64, no. 36, pp. 1, 4.

4. Charles Newman, "IFC Weekend, 'Contact', Approved for Spring, '65; Brownell, Quekemeyer Head Steering Committee," Ring-Tum Phi, 24 March 1964, vol. 64, no. 38, p.1.

5. Henry Quekemeyer, interview by author, telephone to Denton, Texas, 5 May 1998.

6. Dave Marchese, "I. F. C. Report: CONTACT Plans Discussed," Ring-Tum Phi, 15 December 1964, vol. 65, no. 22, pp. 1, 2.

7. Blaine Brownell, interview by author, telephone to Denton, Texas, 28 May 1998.

8. Marchese, p. 1.

9. Brownell, interview by author.

10. Stafford Keegin, interview by author, telephone to San Rafael, California, 6 May 1998.

11. Brownell, interview by author.

12. Phil Claxton, "Contact Co-Chairman Reviews Past, Outlines Plans for 1966," Ring-Tum Phi, 28 September 1965, vol. 66, no. 2, p. 1.

13. "CONTACT: A Second Chance," Ring-Tum Phi, 8 February 1966, vol. 66, no. 27, p. 2.

14. "CONTACT Asks Students for Financial Support: Brown to Address CONTACT," Ring-Tum Phi, 4 February 1966, vol. 66, no. 26, p. 1.

15. "Griffin Discusses CONTACT," Ring-Tum Phi, 18 February 1966, vol. 66, no. 30, p. 2.

16. Steve Saunders, "61 Percent of Student Body Attends Contact," 15 February 1966, vol. 66, no. 29, p. 1.

17. "Griffin Discusses CONTACT," p. 2.

18. "Praise for CONTACT," Ring-Tum Phi, 15 February 1966, vol. 66, no. 29, p. 2, reprinted from the New York Herald Tribune, 13 February 1966.

19. Keegin, interview by author.

20. Ibid. Keegin recalls the Goldwater event as particularly interesting because Goldwater gave a speech he had not seen prior to ascending to the podium. Goldwater's office had sent a speechwriter down early, who wrote the speech at W&L and handed it to the senator as he walked on the stage. Keegin remembers it being a good speech, notable for its ambivalence toward conscientious objectors, in sharp contrast to Goldwater's 1964 campaign image.

21. Jim Barnes and Lee Howard, "Contact, SAB In Trouble: VP Says Contact 'Deceptive'," Ring-Tum Phi, 3 November 1977, vol. 77, no. 8, pp. 1-2.

22. J. Michael Gallagher, "Funds mismanaged, misused," Ring-Tum Phi, 3 November 1977, vol. 77, no. 8, p. 8.

23. "Student Body News," Executive Committee minutes, 7 November 1977 (Lexington, VA: Executive Committee, 1977, photocopied).

24. Lee Howard, "E.C. Leaves Parties Up to Chairmen," Ring-Tum Phi, 10 November 1977, vol. 77, no. 9, p. 1, 12.

25. J. Michael Gallagher, "E.C. inaction condemned," Ring-Tum Phi, 10 November 1977, vol. 77, no. 9, p. 8.

26. Jim Barnes and Lee Howard, "IFC May Withhold Contact Funds," Ring-Tum Phi, 10 November 1977, vol. 77, no. 9, p. 1.

27. "Bovay and Bruch criticize 4^th estate," Ring-Tum Phi, 10 November 1977, vol. 77, no. 9, p. 9.

28. Lee Howard, "Parties: EC requires accountability," Ring-Tum Phi, 17 November 1977, vol 77, no. 10, pp. 1, 2.

29. "Student Body News," Executive Committee minutes, 5 December 1977 (Lexington, VA: Executive Committee, 1977, photocopied).

30. "Student Body News," Executive Committee minutes, 23 January 1978 (Lexington, VA: Executive Committee, 1978, photocopied).

31. Due to my own involvement in this matter, I will decline to discuss it here, although I will clarify that this controversy surrounded the question of whether students from groups not co-sponsoring speaker events can attend dinners with the speakers.

32. Tom Salley, interview by author, telephone to Washington, D.C., 6 May 1998.

33. Scott Cardozo, interview by author, telephone to Richmond, Virginina, 8 May 1998.

34. "Student Body News," Executive Committee minutes, 30 April 1984 (Lexington, VA: Executive Committee, 1984, photocopied).

35. "Student Body News," Executive Committee minutes, 7 May 1984 (Lexington, VA: Executive Committee, 1984, photocopied).

36. Michael A. Cappeto, to Bob Jenevein and Cole Dawson, 2 April 1984, original in EC records, Washington and Lee University.

This page is maintained by Contact Committee Vice Chair for Publicity Adam Allogramento.  Contact him by e-mail with questions or comments.