Fairfield University: The Emergence of a Modern Catholic Institution

              BOSTON COLLEGE
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY: THE EMERGENCE OF
A MODERN CATHOLIC INSTITUTION
Joseph Richard Preville
A Dissertation
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences
of Boston College
Boston College
1985
@ All rights reserved by
Joseph Richard Preville, 1985
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LISTOFFIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
PREFACE . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Chapter
I. PURPOSE AND PROMISE: THE ORIGIN AND ESTABLISH-MENT
OF FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY . . . . . . . . . . 1
11. POWER AND PARTNERSHIP: THE EVOLUTION OF
UNIVERSITY GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION . . . . 37
Corporate Control and Ecclesiastical
Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
University Aggiornamento . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Collegiality and Shared Governance . . . . . . 65
111.' AQUINAS AND ACCOUNTING: THE DEVELOPMENT
OF AN ACADEMIC COMMUNITY . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
The Establishment of the College of
Arts and Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
The Formation of Graduate Schools . . . . . . . 99
A Decade of Bold Academic Expansion . . . . . . 106
IV. POWER AND PROTEST: STUDENT LIFE AT
FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
The Molding of a Catholic Laity'. . . - . . . . 119
Campus Debate and Student Rebellion . . . . . . 129
A Change in the Campus Personality . . . . . . 151
V. COUNSEL AND COURTROOM: FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY'S
VICTORY IN TILTON v. RICHARDSON . . . . . . . . . 160
The Arrival of the Tilton v. Cohen Complaint . 160
The Trial in Hartford: Tilton v. F-inch . . . . 184
Preparations for the Supreme Court . . . . . . 191
Victory at the Supreme Court: Tilton v.
Richardson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
VI. CHANGE AND CONTINUITY: UNIVERSITY HISTORY
INPERSPECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
A P P E N D I C E S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
LIST OF FIGURES
The 1945 General Development Plan . . . . . . . . 23
The University Charter . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
The University Seal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Curricula in the Colleges of Arts and
Sciences. 1955 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Undergraduate Degrees Awarded. 1951-1964 . . . . 96
The Core Curriculum. 1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Graduate Enrollment in Education. 1950-1962 . . . 100
The Core Curriculum. 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Business Majors. 1972-1979 . . . . . . . . . . . 112
"Man Ahead of Methods" Editorial . . . . 143
"Black Future for Fairfield U" Editorial . . . . 144
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
During the writing of my dissertation, I had the good
fortune to have been directed by distinguished historian
Edward J. Power, whose scholarly achievements initially
attracted me to Boston College. I would like to herewith ex-press
my gratitude to him for his patience and constant en-couragement.
I would also like to express appreciation to
the two other members of my dissertation committee: Charles
F. Donovan, S.J. and Lester E. Przewlocki. Both offered val-uable
advice and criticism. Five other individuals also read
my dissertation at various points in its development and
offered helpful comments: William C. McInnes, S.J., Robert
and Elizabeth K. Preville, Dr. Marianne Barry-Gaboury and
Dr. Antonio Gaboury.
I would like to thank my parents, Arthur J. and
Donna J. Preville; my grandmother, Margaret C. Briley and my
brother and sister-in-law, Robert A. and Elizabeth K.
Preville, for their very generous financial support of my
research. Credit is also due to the following individuals
whose friendship proved to be powerfully motivating and sup-portive:
John S. Brennan, Sr. Mary D. O'Keefe, Br. Daniel
Scala, Dr. Linda Spink, Thomas Zaccaro, Connie White and
Seamus Finn.
vii
I would like to acknowledge my gratitude to Fairfield
University, Boston College and the Association of Jesuit Col-leges
and Universities for providing the necessary financial
support without which this historical study would not have
been possible. Specifically, I would like to thank the fol-lowing
individuals at Fairfield University, who offered their
valuable time, advice and historical documents during my
research: Aloysius P. Kelley, S.J., John A. Barone, Christo-pher
F. Mooney, S.J., John J. Higgins, S.J., William Lucas,
Linda Trabka, Edward J. Lynch, S.J., Charles F. Duffy, S.J.,
Victor Leeber, S.J., Phyllis Porter, Robert Russo, Vincent
Murphy, Robert Boccardi, David Flynn, William Schimpf,
Francis J. Moy, S.J., William Cullen, S.J., Murray Farber,
Richard Popilowski, Barbara Bryan, King Dykeman, Walter
Petry, John Orman, Lisa Newton, Thomas McGrath, S.J., R.
James Long, Richard De Angelis and Kevin Cassidy.
Since the establishment of Georgetown Universityin
1786, the Society of Jesus in the United States founded
forty-three colleges and universities and assumed control of
eleven 0thers.l Only twenty-eight of these proved to be
durable. Three were chartered after the Second World War:
Fairfield University in 1945, Le Moyne College in 1946 and
Wheeling College in 1955.
Fairfield University was founded by the New England
Province of the Society of Jesus. It was the third Jesuit
institution of higher learning founded in New England. The
other two were founded nearly a century earlier: College of
the Holy Cross in 1843 and Boston College in 1858.~
The purpose of this study is to trace the historical
development of Fairfield University from its establishment
l~dward J. Power, A History of Catholic Higher Edu-cation
in the United States, (Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing
Company, 1958), pp. 255-328.
'1bid. (For a historical treatment of these two
institutions, the following volumes may be consulted: David
R. Dunigan, S.J., A History of Boston College [Milwaukee:
Bruce Publishina Comuanv, 19471 and Walter J. Meaaher. S.J. - ~
and William J. Gratt6n,-The spires of Fenwick: A Histbry of
the College of the Holy Cross (1843-1963), [New York: Vantage
Press, 19661. For a aeneral biblioarauhv of American Jesuit 2 . * - - ~
higher education, see-~osephR. Preville, A ~ i b l i o g r a ~ohf ~
of Jesuit Higher Education in the United States, IWashington,
D.C.: Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, 19831.)
on March 17, 1942. In this first extended treatment of Fair-field's
history, a special effort is made to relate the
university's evolution to the broad themes of post World War
I1 American and Jesuit higher education. It is anticipated
that such an inquiry will contribute to an understandingof
Fairfield University's unique heritage and role in the de-velopment
of American higher education.
CHAPTER I
PURPOSE AND PROMISE: THE ORIGIN AND ESTABLISHMENT
OF FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY
The events and personalities of World War I1 (1939-45)
dominated the era in which Fairfield University was founded.
It was an era marked by ideological avarice and global con-flict.
It was also an era of significant literary achieve-ment
and scientific progress.
For the twenty-one million American Roman Catholics, .
"World War I1 was another in a long series of passages."1 No
longer "prey to [the] institutional narcissism"2 of an earlier
period, the American Church moved center stage in ardent
support of Franklin Delano Roosevelt's foreign policies
Speaking on behalf of the American Roman Catholic
episcopacy, Detroit Archbishop (later, Cardinal) Edward
Mooney offered F. D. R. virtually unswerving support:
As Chief Executive of our nation you have called
upon the American people for full service and sacri-fice
in a war of defense against wanton aggression.
Congress in grave and inspiring unity has spoken the
will of a great nation determined to be free. We,
l~ames Hennesev. S. J.. American Catholics: A Historv
the Catholic bishops of the United States, spiritual
leaders of more than twenty million Americans, wish
to assure you, Mr. President, that we are keenly
conscious of our nation's testing. With a patrio-tism
that is guided and sustained by the Christian
virtues of faith, hope, and charity, we will marshal
the spiritual forces at our command to render secure
our God-given blessings of freedom.
We give you, Mr. President, the pledge of our
wholehearted cooperation in the difficult days that
lie ahead. We will zealously fulfill our spiritual
ministry in the sacred cause of our country's
service. We place at your disposal in that service
our institutions and their consecrated personnel.
We will lead our priests and people in constant
prayer that God may bear you up under the heavy
burdens that weigh upon you, that He may guide you
and all who share with you responsibility for the
nation's governance and security, that He may
strengthen us all to win a victory that will be a
blessing not for our nation alone, but for the
whole world.
Zacheus J. Maher, S.J., American Assistant to Father
General Wlodomir Ledochowski, S.J., offered a similar cor-porate
pledge to F. D. R. one week later:
During the previous World War, all the Jesuit
Universities and Colleges in America served the
country, not only by continuing their normal
educational activities whereby patriotic citizens
and high minded leaders were supplied to the
nation; they assisted the Government in other
fields as well. Should you, Mr. President, deem
it necessary or useful to the defense of the
country or the promotion of the common welfare
to employ again the facilities of these institu-tions
in the present danger, you have but to make
your wish known, I can assure you of our wh le
hearted, our devoted, our glad cooperation. 2
-
3~ishop Edward Mooney to FDR, 22 December 1941, in
4~acheus J. Maher, S.J. to FDR, 29 December 1941, in
Hermann J. Muller, S.J., The University of Detroit (1877-1977):
A Centennial History (Detroit: The University of Detroit, 19761,
p. 211.
Maher's pledge was by no means insignificant. By
fall 1942, the Society of Jesus in the United States was
operating twenty-five colleges and universities as well as
thirty-seven high schools. Two of these educational insti-tutions
were brand new: Jesuit High School in Dallas, Texas,
and Fairfield College of St. Robert Bellarmine in Fairfield,
Conne~ticut.~A t the same time, the Jesuits assumed control
of two institutions: the University of Scranton in Scranton,
Pennsylvania and Cheverus High School in Portland, Maine.
Before the establishment ofFa'irfield College of
Saint Robert Bellarmine in 1942, the Jesuit institutional
presence in Connecticut was limited to Manresa Institute of
Keyser Island at South Norwalk and a tertianship (St. Robert's
Hall) at Pomfret.
Keyser Island, named after New York politician John H.
Keyser, was bought by the Jesuits in 1888 for $32,000. Char-tered
in 1888 as Manresa Institute, it served "as a retreat
5 ~ h eJe suit colleges and universities which had been
founded before Fairfield College of Saint Robert Bellarmine
were: Georgetown University (1786); Saint Louis University
(1818); Spring Hill College (1830); Xavier University (1831);
Fordham University (1841); College of the Holy Cross (1843);
St. Joseph's College (1851); University of Santa Clara (1851);
Loyola College (1852); University of San Francisco (1855);
Boston College (1858); Canisius College (1878); Regis College
(1888); University of Detroit (1877); Creighton University
(1878); Marquette University (1864); John Carroll University
(1886); Gonzaga University (1887); Seattle University (1891);
Loyola University - Los Angeles (1865); University of
Scranton (1891); Loyola University - New Orleans (1904);
Rockhurst College (1910). (power, A History of Catholic
Higher Education in the United States, pp. 255-328).
house and a summer residence for men engaged in college work."6
The property was sold by the Jesuits to the Connecticut Light
and Power Company in 1954.
In early 1935, the Jesuits purchased the 130 acre
M. F. Hoppin estate located in Pomfret, Connecticut. The
property, which was sold to the Jesuits for $35,000, served
as a tertianship for the New England Province until the
spring of 1968. The property was later sold to a labor
union in 1973.
Since 1929, the New England Province of the Society
of Jesus had a keen interest in establishing an educational
institution in Connecticut. Two appeals were made to
Hartford Bishop Maurice F. McAuliffe (Bishop from 1934-44):
once in December 1934 when the Jesuits received permission
to establish a tertianship at Pomfret and once in 1937.7
James H. Dolan, S.J., Provincial Superior of the New
England Province from 1937-44, made a third request to
Bishop McAuliffe on July 24, 1941:
Permit me to again submit for your Excellency's
kind consideration that the Fathers of the New
England Province of the Society of Jesus have been
constantly and gratefully mindful of the assurance,
so graciously given in 1934 and again in 1937, that
at the first opportune occasion we would be granted
permission to open a school for boys in the Hartford
Diocese.
6~amesL . Burke, S.J., Jesuit Province of New
England: The Formative Years (Boston: New England Province of
the Society of Jesus, 1976), p. 96.
7~incent A. Lapomarda, S.J. maintains that the choice
of the Connecticut setting was motivated by the desire "to
move away from the inbreeding that threatened the New
I am confident that your Excellency will receive
this renewal of our request with understanding and
sympathy. God has blessed us abundantly not only in
the increase of vocations but especially in the fer-vent
zeal of our Fathers and Brothers, who are so
eager to extend our apostolic labors in the field of
Catholic education beyond the narrow boundaries
within which we have been restricted since the estab-lishment
of the Province in 1926.
During the past year the indications of the
steady recovery of industrial and business interests
would seem to warrant the hope that the opportunity
for which we have been praying so earnestly is now
at hand. I trust that this may be so and that God
may direct Your Excellency to favor our humble
request at this time. May I respectfully submit
the assurance of our unfailing cooperation and com-plete
de~otion?~
Bishop McAuliffe gave his permission to establish a
high school and eventually a college during an interview in .
Hartford with James H. Dolan, S.J. and Robert A. Hewitt, S.J.
on September 4, 1941
Although the Jesuits originally wanted to establish
the school in Hartford or New Haven, Bishop McAuliffe
determined Bridgeport to be more suitable because of exces-sive
"tax-exempt Catholic institutional property in that
city [Hartford], and because the people of the southern part
England Province from the several foundations that existed
in Massachusetts." (The Jesuit Heritage in New England
[Worcester, MA: The Jesuits of Holy Cross, Inc., 19771,
p. 200).
',Tames H. Dolan, S. J. to Bishop Maurice McAuliffe,
24 July 1941, Dolan Papers, Fairfield University Archives,
Fairfield, Connecticut. (Hereafter cited as FUA.)
of the diocese had been complaining that nothing had been
done for education in that se~tion."~
On September 15, 1941, Bishop McAuliffe gave final
written permission to establish the school in the Bridgeport
area. On behalf of the New England Province, James Dolan,
S.J. formally acknowledged McAuliffe's invitation the follow-ing
day:
Kindly accept my immediate and grateful acknowl-edgement
of Your Excellency's communication under
date of September fifteenth, by which you graciously
confirm our verbal agreement of September fourth
regarding the founding of a School by the New
England Province of the Society of Jesus in the
Bridgeport area of the Hartford Diocese.
I note with pleasure that in confirming the
invitation to establish a High School, Your Excel-lency
extends the favor, in accordance with our
earlier request, to include the founding of a
college in the same area. Your expression of the
cordial wish for every success in our efforts to
build up a strong center of education at the new
foundation is deeply appreciated.
Permit me to commend this splendid apostolic
venture for the greater glory of God to Your
Excellency's paternal charity and prayerful remem-brance.
The spirit of priestly cooperation and
filial devotion and the assurance of our fervent
remembrance each day at the altar will be the most
acceptable expression to Your appreciation and
profound gratitude. 10
Having received the necessary permissions from
Father General Ledowchowski and Bishop McAuliffe, James
9~obert A. Hewitt, S.J. to James H. Dolan, S.J.,
6 September 1941, Dolan Papers, FUA. (Hewitt's letter is
actually a recollection of his and Dolan's interview with
Bishop McAuliffe on September 4, 1941).
'O~arnes H. Dolan, S.J. to Bishop Maurice McAuliffe,
16 September 1941, Dolan Papers, FUA.
Dolan, S.J., Daniel Mahoney, S.J. (Superior at Keyser Island)
and Thomas McLaughlin, S.J. (Procurator of the New England
Providence) began the search for suitable property in the
Bridgeport area on September 10. At Bishop McAuliffe's
recommendation, the Jesuits were to proceed quietly "until
after [the] purchase (or rental) of a suitable location, so
that local real estate men might not jump their prices. 1, 11
During the first month of the search, the prospects
were very discouraging. The available property in Bridgeport
proved to be inadequate for the needs of a future high school
and college.
On October 15, the Oliver Gould Jennings seventy-six-acre
estate located in Fairfield was put up for sale. A
graduate of Yale College (1887) and Columbia Law School
(1889), 0. G. Jennings was "a direct descendent of Elder
William Brewster, of Plymouth, and his family had made its
fortune with the Rockef ellers , in the Standard Oil Company. "I2
In 1936, Mr. Jennings died after having lived an extraordi-nary
life as an entrepreneur, politician and philanthropist.
The estate included a large forty-room French
Renaissance style home, which Jennings built for his wife,
ll~ames H. Dolan, S.J. to William L. Keleher, S.J.
(Province Socius), 7 September 1942, Dolan Papers, FUA.
(William L. Kelehes, S.J. was President of Boston College
from 1945-1951).
"~obert W. Turcotte, "A History of Fairfield
University" (Unpublished Master's Thesis, Trinity College,
Hartford, Connecticut, 1975), p. 1.
Mary Dows Brewster Jennings in 1896. The original home, which
was significantly enlarged in 1907, was referred to as "The
Mailands." Shortly after the Jesuits purchased the property,
"The Mailands" was renamed "McAuliffe Hall" after the Bishop
of Hartford.
On October 22, Fairfield Mayor Paul Daly intervened
with the Jennings family on behalf of the Jesuits. Although
Daly attempted to secure the Jennings property as a gift, his
effort was unsuccessful. Indeed, the Jennings family refused
to negotiate with the Jesuits under any condition.13 How-ever,
the Jennings family finally yielded on November 23
after it was unable to secure an alternate bid. The estate
was sold to the Jesuits for $42,089.84 on December 15, 1941.14
Almost simultaneously, the town of Fairfield assumed
control of a large adjoining estate in lieu of a $51,599
Superior court tax lien foreclosure, namely, the Walter B.
Lashar estate. Acquired shortly after World War I, the
Walter B. Lashar estate included 105 acres and a 44 room
English Manor style home, which overlooked Long Island Sound.
The mansion, referred to as "Hearthstone Hall" because of its
13~aniel Mahoney, S.J. to James H. Dolan, S.J.,
3 November 1941, Dolan Papers, FUA.
14~nterestingly enough, the Jesuits had considered
purchasing the Jennings property in 1920 in order to build a
novitiate. However, the $150,000 pricetag proved to be pro-hibitive.
It should be noted that the Jennings property was
considerably larger in 1920, which accounted for the huge
difference in price twenty-one years later. The Jesuit
novitiate was finally established in 1923 at Shadowbrook in
Lenox, Massachusetts.
numerous fireplaces, was built in 1920. In August 1942,
"Hearthstone Hall'' was renamed "Bellarmine Hall" after
sixteenth-century Jesuit, cardinal and theologian, St. Robert
Bellarmine.
Viewed as an investment for the province and a safe-guard
for the future school, the Jesuits approached the
Fairfield Selectmen in order to purchase the property. The
Fairfield Selectmen, especially Chairman John Ferguson,
reacted favorably to the Jesuit proposal. On April 1, 1942
the Lashar estate was sold to the Jesuits for $62,500.
One final purchase would be necessary to bind the
entire property within the confines of three major roads, .
namely, the eighteen acre Moorehouse estate at the corner of
North Benson and Barlow Roads. James Dolan, S.J. encouraged
the newly-appointed rector John J. McEleney, S.J. to
Keep an eye on the corner lot at Barton [sic]
and North Benson. It is naturally a physical part
of the school property and should not escape us,
no matter how heavy the burden in procuring it at
the proper time and price. In the meantime we
should guard against speculators, gas stations or
worse things.15
Prior to his appointment as Rector on March 3, 1942,
John J. McEleney, S.J. had been Rector at the Jesuit Novitiate
at Shadowbrook (1937-1942). Two weeks after his appointment,
on the Feast of Saint Patrick, McEleney and six of his
Jesuit confreres drew up the Articles of Association and
By-Laws for a new religious and educational corporation:
15~arnes Dolan, S.J. to John J. McEleney, S.J., 23
August 1942, Dolan Papers, FUA.
Fairfield College of Saint Robert Bellarmine.16 The meeting
was held at the Jesuit tertianship (St. Robert's Hall) at
Pomfret, Connecticut. It was at this meeting that forty-seven
year old John J. McEleney, S.J. was elected President
of the new Corporation.
Ab initio, the Jesuit plan for an education center at
Fairfield elicited immense enthusiasm, especially from the
banking and publishing communities. One month after the
Jesuit purchase of the Jennings estate, J. H. McCall (Assis-tant
Vice President at the First National Bank and Trust
Company of Bridgeport) issued the following letter to James
Dolan, S.J.:
I have just finished a pleasant and very edifying
conversation with my good friend Charles J. McGill,
managing editor of the Bridgeport Post Telegram, in
regard to your proposed school in Fairfield. My re-action
is one of regret that I have no boy to send
there, my only son being now a seminarian at St.
Bernard's Seminary, Rochester, New York.
I am sure you have no idea of the amount of
comment the coming of the Jesuit Fathers to our com-munity
has caused here. Everyone seems to be de-lighted,
boys and their parents in my neighborhood,
for example, and many business men whom I know. Men
like Mr. McGill are tremendously enthusiastic and
have imparted a great deal of their enthusiasm to
others who are not so intimately acquainted with the
work of your order, and I can assure you, you will
receive a warm welcome here.
If at any time I or the institution I represent
can be of any service to you, please feel free
16~he seven Jesuit Incorporators of Fairfield College
of Saint Robert Bellarmine, Incorporated on March 17, 1942
were: John J. McEleney, James H. Dolan, William L. Keleher,
John H. Collins, Daniel P. Mahoney, Thomas L. McLaughlin and
Leo Fair. The Corporation was specifically organized to
establish and maintain a school for intermediate, secondary
and advanced education in the Town of Fairfield, Connecticut.
to call on me. I should like to add, we maintain a
very convenient branch off ice in Fairf ield. l7
The same day that the new educational corporation was
formed, Lewis Shea of the First National Bank and Trust
Company sent the following brief message to Dolan:
It is with pleasure that I hear that the Society
of Jesus is organizing a new Junior and Senior School
in Fairfield. It is very much needed in these parts
and I am sure it will be a big success. The property
and its location are the best in Fairfield, and we
have heard very favorable comnents about its acquisi-tion.
18
On April 23, the first brochure, announcing the open-ing
of Fairfield College Preparatory School in September 1942,
was sent to Catholic schools throughout the Hartford Diocese.
Designed by William Healy, S.J. of Shadowbrook, the brochure'
was a masterful introduction to the Jesuits and the Jesuit
educational system based upon the Ratio Studiorum. Proclaim-ing
"Pro Deo et Patria" (For God and Country) to be the slogan
of the new school, the brochure devoted special emphasis to
religious character formation:
Fairfield College Preparatory School will . . .
earnestly attend to religious training. The spirit
of religion pervades the entire system of Jesuit
education; it is part of the very atmosphere the
student breathes. The School will strive to send
forth young men of strong character, of upright and
manly consciences, trained in Christian virtues, in
"5. H. McCall to James H. Dolan, S.J., 17 January
1942, Dolan Papers, FUA.
18~ewis A. Shea to James H. Dolan, S.J., 17 March
1942, Dolan Papers, FUA.
lessons of honor, of honesty, of courtesy, tact and
kindliness and of devotion to the common g00d;~~;oung
men prepared to lead exemplary Catholic lives.
This first public announcement brochure from Fairfield
College Preparatory School was dedicated to Hartford Bishop
Maurice F. McAuliffe. Such a dedication was especially
appropriate inasmuch as Bishop McAuliffe had initially in-vited
the Jesuits to establish the first Roman Catholic school
for young men in the Hartford Diocese, which in 1942 was
coextensive with the state of Connecticut.
Bishop McAuliffe not only extended an invitation to
the Jesuits, but offered substantial financial assistance as
well. On July 30, 1942, Bishop McAuliffe sent an unrestricted
gift of ten thousand dollars tO John J. McEleney, S.J., Presi-dent
of the brand new Fairfield College of Saint Robert
Bellarmine, Incorporated. He did so with the stipulation
that his deed remain unmentioned. 20
His stipulation actually represented a prudent attempt
to avoid any additional resentment on the part of the Fran-ciscans
and Holy Cross Fathers, whose request to start a
school in the Hartford Diocese had earlier been refused.
McAuliffe's gift was accompanied by the following
letter:
airfield College Preparatory School Preliminary
Announcement for 1942-43, p. 3, FUA.
20~ohn J. McEleney, S.J. to James Dolan, S. J., 7 June
1942, McEleney Papers, FUA.
I am happy to send you the enclosed check to be
used for the general purposes of the Fairfield
Preparatory School.
I am delighted with the auspicious beginning of
this great venture and I am sure that we cannot begin
to estimate the amount of good that will be accom-plished
through the School in the years to come. It
is good to know that the Society shares in my hopes
and real enthusiasm.
I pray that God will bless you in this great
work and shower His graces upon all who contribute
their services to the moulding of a devout and informed
body of Catholic boys and young men in Fairfield and
the surrounding area. 21
McEleney acknowledged McAuliffe's letter and handsome
gift three days later. In his letter to the Bishop, McEleney
maintained:
I am keenly aware that I cannot find words with
which to properly thank Your Excellency for your
hearty letter of July 30th with its princely
enclosure, with its enthusiastic well-wishes for
the success of our school, and with its prayerful
blessing upon our work.
In return, we earnestly pray that the Sacred
Heart may shower His richest blessings upon your
Episcopal labors, and that He may bless this
diocese with extended years of your fervent
pastorate.
Coming as Your Excellency's aid and encour-agement
do in these first anxious days of our
school you have provided us with a sturdy support
which leaves us more profoundly grateful than we
can ever say. Your charity to us will remain a
priceless treasure. 22
Bishop McAuliffe's blessing of the new school on
September 8, 1942 marked the formal opening of Fairfield
''~ishop Maurice F. McAuliffe to John J. McEleney,
S.J., 30 July 1942, McEleney Papers, FUA.
22~ohn J. McEleney, S.J. to Bishop Maurice F.
McAuliffe, 2 August 1942, FUA. (The exact amount of the
gift is neither mentioned in Bishop McAuliffe's July 30, 1942
letter nor in McEleney's response of August 2, 1942. However,
College Preparatory School. Three hundred and nineteen stu-dents
were enrolled and classes began on September 11, 1942.
In his short historical essay written in 1975, John J.
McEleney, S.J. maintained:
In the beginning, one had thought of opening
classes for the first year students only in the
Preparatory School, but the response to the announce-ment
[April 231 has been so positive and the urging
of friends so insistent that the decision was made
to accept students for the four years from the first
day. 23
Months of renovation had transformed McAuliffe Hall
(the former Jennings mansion) into the center of the new
school. By September, it had been architecturally adapted
to include classrooms, laboratories, a cafeteria, a library
and a chapel. A renovated Bellarmine Hall (the former
Lashar mansion) served as the principal faculty residence. 2 4
It would serve as such until August 31, 1981.
based upon the assurances of Bishop McAuliffe, McEleney
records the specific amount of the anticipated gift Iten
thousand dollars] in his June 7, 1942 letter to James H.
Dolan, S.J. In addition, the $11,363 entry under "Gifts
Received" in the August 1942 Monthly Statements, located in
Fairfield University Archives, is additional solid evidence
that Fairfield College of St. Robert Bellarmine, Incorporated
did receive and accept a substantial gift in the amount of
ten thousand dollars from Hartford Bishop Maurice McAuliffe).
23~ohn J. McEleney, S.J., 'A Brief History of the
Origins of Fairfield University", 1975, p. 5, FUA.
24~he original 19 member Jesuit faculty included 12
priests and 7 Scholastics: Rev. John J. McEleney (Rector and
President of the Corporation), Rev. Edward J. Whalen, Rev.
James H. Barry, Rev. John L. Barry, Rev. Eugene P. Burns,
Rev. John W. Doherty, Rev. Thomas A. Fay, Rev. Bernard A.
Finnegan, Rev. John J. Kelleher, Rev. William W. Kennedy,
Rev. Gerald M. Landry, Rev. Leo A. Reilly (Principal), Rev.
Mr. Paul A. FitzGerald, Rev. Mr. Eladio Garcia, Rev. Mr.
By the middle of October, local supporters of the new
school had organized a drive for the construction of a road
between McAuliffe and Bellarmine Halls. At a large campus
gathering of prominent civic leaders, town officials and
local townsmen on December 6, 1942, a check for $6,000 was
presented to McEleney to pay for the nearly mile-long road.
In accepting the check, McEleney maintained that the new
road would be known as the "Drive of Good Will."
The first issue of the school's literary magazine,
The Bellarmine Quarterly, appeared at Christmas. It was an
impressive collection of essays, poems and news reports. In
his brief essay, "Our School's Founding", Editor-in-Chief
Philip Sheridan maintained:
With the founding of Fairfield College Pre-paratory
School, a new link is forged in the chain
of Jesuit institutions which aid in perpetuating
the immense store of wisdom and experience of the
Society of Jesus.
Our Faculty consists of men who have given
their lives entirely to God in the furtherance of
His Kingdom upon earth. They are men of the same
calibre as Ignatius Loyola and Francis Xavier,
and it is their task to carry on the work begun
by these Saints.
The influence which the School will have on
the men who will study here in the years to come
cannot be fully appreciated. Fortified with
Jesuit training they will be able to take their
places in society with an ease that only such
training can produce. They will be able to sym-pathize
with the cultures of other lands and to
Howard P. Harris, Rev. Mr. Edward S. Stanton and Rev. Mr.
Maurice B. Walsh. (Rev. George A. Codaire, Rev. John H.
Kelly, Rev. Lawrence Lanqguth, Rev. Thomas Murphy and Rev.
Harold C. Kirley later joined their Jesuit confreres during
the academic year.)
aid in the reconstruction period after this war.
Elevated by their religious training, they will be
worthy citizens of these United States as well as
of Christ's Kingdom.
We, the charter members of Fairfleld College
Preparatory School, are truly fortunate in seeing
the birth of such a school of learning.25
Although a spirit of optimism and pioneer enthusiasm
permeated the new school, it faced several major challenges.
By February of 1943, several efforts had been made to secure
a charter for the new school. These efforts were unsuccess-ful
due to a bill before the legislature prohibiting the
granting of charters to newly-formed schools. The bill
stated that no school would be granted a charter until it had
been in existence for at least two years. In lieu of a
charter, Fairfield College Preparatory School was approved by
the Connecticut State Board of Education as a "private sec-ondary
school doing four years of high school work, for the
school year 1943-44, for certification purposes only. ~ 2 6
At the same time, the school attempted to secure the recogni-tion
of the New England College Entrance Certificate Board
and the New England Association of Colleges and Secondary
Schools.
With the large increase in student enrollment by the
Eall of 1943, it became evident that additional construction
25~hilip Sheridan, The Bellarmine Quarterly, 1942,
pp. 25-26, FUA.
26~lonzo G. Grace (Secretary of the Connecticut State
Board of Education) to John J. McEleney, S.J., 7 May 1943,
McEleney Papers.
would be necessary to meet the future needs of the rapidly
growing school. To that end, McEleney devised a plan for a
million dollar development campaign. Based upon Architect
Oliver Reagan's plans, McEleney hoped to build one large
building which would include 45 classrooms, 4 laboratories,
a number of offices, a faculty room, an auditorium accommo-dating
1300 people and a large ~afeteria.~' Reagan also
devised several alternative plans, including one to trans-form
the greenhouse into a temporary classroom building.
On October 5, 1943 Bishop McAuliffe gave McEleney
permission to proceed with the million dollar drive but
restricted it to Fairfield County, much to McEleney's
disapp~intment.~M~c Eleney received approval for the Drive
from the Provincial Consultors and James Dolan, S.J. on
October 23, 1943.~~
Within two weeks, James Dolan, S.J. urged McEleney
not to "waste money on a temporary construction if it will
be at all possible to put up a permanent structure."30 In
the same letter, Dolan proceeded to offer his own detailed
architectural plan for a permanent structure at Fairfield:
27~ames H. Dolan, S.J. to Province Consultors, 6
October 1943, Dolan Papers, FUA.
28~ishop Maurice F. McAuliSfe to John J. McEleney,
S.J., 23 October 1943, McEleney Papers, FUA.
29~ames H. Dolan, S.J. to John J. McEleney, S.J., 23
October 1943, McEleney Papers, FUA.
30~ames H. Dolan, S. J. to John J. McEleney, S.J.,
6 November 1943, McEleney Papers, FUA.
I would therefore immediately think in terms of
a three-story structure in Roman brick of a grayish
tint, to blend in with McAuliffe Hall, and to be
suitable as the definitely accepted material of all
future construction. I would add that the building
ought to be T-shaped, with the central section on
the location of the present greenhouse, but longer
and very much wider, and the long arm of the build-ing
directly over the path behind the greenhouse. 31
While characterizing his plan as "Building Castles in
the ~ i r,"3 2 Dolan was optimistic in the belief that Fairfield
could procure a permit to build (despite war-time restric-tions)
and gather the money to pay for the permanent struc-ture.
By the summer of 1944, the construction of a temporary
structure appeared to be the most economically and politically
feasible alternative due to war-time restrictions. Thus, on
July 5, 1944 McEleney authorized the E. & F. Construction
Company to proceed with the construction of an eight-room
temporary school building at a cost of $37,422. He also
informed the Bridgeport company that the award was contingent
upon securing permission from the War Production Board (WPB)
to build.
On July 7, 1944, McEleney formally petitioned the WPB
in Bridgeport for permission to build, but the request was
denied on July 29, 1944. In its letter of denial, the WPB
maintained that the proposed construction was clearly not
essential inasmuch as "the public high schools in Bridgeport
31~bid.
32~bid.
and the town of Fairfield have the capacity to take care of
the pupils which your present facilities cannot accommodate
without undue hardship."33 This claim by the WPB was quickly
rejected by F. B. Dunigan., President of the Bridgeport Board
of Education:
Without complete readjustment of classes, it
would be impossible for us to handle any increased
pupil load. It is easily understood that an in-creased
pupil load means more than just classrooms.
A complete study of individual class registration
and teacher load is necessary and as you are aware,
this often presents difficult problems.
At the present time, we are experiencing dif-ficulty
in securing regular teachers and substi-tutes.
In many cases we are obliged to use teachers
who have not met Civil Service requirements.34
Dr. Thomas F. Davis, M.D., President of the Fairfield
Board of Education, referred to the unsubstantiated claims in
the WPB decision as "badly informed and prej~dicial."~5 In
his letter to McEleney, Dr. Davis maintained:
Your organization has done a magnificant job in
the establishment of a classical school the nature
of which will be of benefit to the Nation itself.
Therefore, any attempt at the present time to re-strain
or to restrict your activities would cer-tainly
be a step in the wrong direction, inasmuch
as the entire Nation is now trying to provide for
the development of future leaders who shall be called
upon to lead our Nation in its many diverse problems.36
33~ar Production Board to John J. McEleney, S.J.,
29 July 1944, McEleney Papers, FUA.
34~. P. Dunigan to John J. McEleney, S.J., 29 July
1944, McEleney Papers, FUA.
35~r. Thomas F. Davis to John J. McEleney, S.J., 30
July 1944, McEleney Papers, FUA.
In his masterful letter to the Regional Review of
Appeals Board, McEleney maintained that the denial would
serve to thwart the specific purposes of Fairfield College
Preparatory School, namely, the Catholic education of young
men. Ardent supporter, Bishop McAuliffe, echoed the same
claim in his letter to the Appeals Board:
It would be a great loss to the Church and ulti-mately
to the community itself if this much desired
service so long awaited and so happily received by
our Catholic people were now to be denied.37
Despite even the efforts and support of U.S. Senator
Francis Maloney and U.S. Representative Clare Boothe Luce,
the War Production Appeals Board denied McEleneyls request
on August 22, 1944. While admitting the special nature of
the curriculum and the environment at Fairfield College
Preparatory School, the Appeals Board "found it impossible to
reconcile the use of approximately 45,000 board feet of this
critical material in the construction of a temporary wooden
building. ''38
Although Fairfield College Preparatory School failed
to convince the War Production Board of the necessity of its
request for additional construction, it made no attempt to
curtail the overall fall enrollment. Indeed, 512 students
37~ishop Maurice F. McAuliffe to the WPB Regional
Review of Appeals Board, 29 July 1944, McEleney papers, FUA.
3 8 Reg~iona~l Re~view of Appeals Board to John J.
McEleney, S.J., 22 August 1944, FUA.
were enrolled in September 1944 and were entrusted to the
care of a thirty-one member Jesuit faculty.
Shortly before Christmas, a significant change occurred
in the academic and spiritual supervision of the school.39
On December 8, John J. McEleney, S.J. was appointed Provincial
Superior of the New England Province. 40 McEleney had per-formed
admirably as a pioneer Rector and President, but the
next critical phase of Fairfield's development required an
individual with more extensive experience in Jesuit higher
education. McEleney was replaced by his religious superior,
New England Provincial James H. Dolan, S.J. On December 21,
Dolan was formally elected President of Fairfield College of
Saint Robert Bellannine, Inc. by the Corporation's trustees.
Unquestionably, James Dolan, S.J. was uniquely qual-ified
for his new position at Fairfield. Prior to his tenure
as Provincial Superior of the New England Province (1937-44),
Dolan had been President of Boston College (1925-32). His
successful achievements there included the establishment of
the Law School in 1929; expansion of the Graduate School of
3 9 ~ tth e same time, a significant change was also
occurring in the administration of the Hartford Diocese due
to the death of the Bishop Maurice F. McAuliffe on December
15, 1944. (McAuliffe died exactly three years after the
Jesuits purchased the Jennings estate). McAuliffe was
succeeded by Auxiliary Bishop Henry J. O'Brien, who was
installed on June 5, 1945. Bishop O'Brien presided over the
Hartford Diocese until 1953.
40~ohn J. McEleney, S.J. served as the fourth Pro-vincial
Superior of the New England Province from 1944-1950.
Arts and Sciences and the completion of the University
Library. In addition to founding Fairfield College of Saint
Robert Bellarmine in 1942 and Cranwell Preparatory School at
Lenox, Massachusetts in 1939, Dolan arranged for the Jesuit
administration and faculty at the diocesan Cheverus Classical
School in Portland, Maine, in 1942. [Cheverus Classical had
been founded in 1917).
Shortly after his appointment, Dolan commissioned
Westport architect Oliver Reagan to submit a general devel-opment
plan for both the preparatory school and the future
university. The resulting comprehensive plan, which was
given artistic rendering by Chester Price of New York,
included forty-two Collegiate Gothic buildings. The plan
divided the buildings into three groups: the college-preparatory
group in the northeastern sector of the campus,
the college buildings on a north-south axis through the
central portion of the campus and the graduate and profes-sional
schools in the southeastern sector of the campus.
This comprehensive building plan, which included medical,
dental and law schools, was publicly announced and exhibited
at a testimonial dinner for John McEleney, S.J. on June 10,
1 9 4 4 . ~ ~(S ee Figure 1).
Dolan's ambitious plan elicited local public enthu-siasm
and stimulated institutional pride and purpose. It
41~urcotte, "A History of Fairfield University",
p. 17.
also received the endorsement of American Assistant Zacheus
J. Maher, S.J. In his letter to Dolan, Maher wrote:
In California a famous landscape engineer has as
his slogan 'Plant to a plan'. I believe strongly
that we in like manner should 'Build to a plan'. I
am glad, therefore, that you are designing the over-all
Fairfield of tomorrow. I believe it is easier
now than it used to be to control individual rectors
in subsequent construction; certainly it would be if
all due formalities were observed in securing per-missions.
For then the Provincial can insist that
the orginal plan can be followed and thus harmonious
development will ensue.42
Dolan's long-range planning extended beyond an
architectural sketch. By April, he had.enlisted the aid of
Stanford attorney E. Gaynor Brennan to draw up a formal
petition for a university charter. After extensive testi-mony,
the petition was evaluated by the Legislature's
Incorporations Committee and was unanimously accepted on
April 18, 1945. The bill was then approved by the Senate on
April 25 and the House on May 2. Finally, Governor Raymond E.
Baldwin signed the bill on May 29, 1945.
According to the charter, the newly incorporated
Fairfield University of Saint Robert Bellarmine was empowered
to operate an institution composed of four educational units:
intermediate; secondary: undergraduate and graduate. It was
also granted carte blanche power "to confer all such academic
degrees as are usually given in colleges and universities."
(See Figure 2).
42~acheus J. Maher, S.J. to James H. Dolan, S.J., 30
April 1945, Dolan Papers, FUA.
fk it #nactd 5 /he Senate and XOUSf~Pr esenfat i~in$enera/&rn~ conwed
3 n m r b ~ , ~ d a n . ~ t ~ $ ~ n l l u , 3 ~ h n ~ . ~ o ~ , ~ $a~nb lth~rir~ r n ~ , 3 ~ h n & ~ ~
IUKILSO~S.~~~ such ethrr prnonr crs may be rssoeioltrb with them in eccorbance with thr by-
Iawr $ the <orpordion,..rc con.titutcb e baby politic anb corporete by th. name of
pirfielb pnilrrr8lix n f & i n t ~ o k r f ~ U a c m j n ~ 1
t. ba locahc in thc town $ Lfairfielb.ceunt9 sf Shirflalb ena .+ah 9 Ccnnactfcut.
' Gka .urB"o.e of ,s a i b s ewo r a t t o n ,hall 6. t o e ~ t a b l i s h o. rrrani.r.msintain enb
cenaYel & tn.ttlutten or: <<trvmabldr ,scconbery, unbtrg.ab&h anb grobuatc rb-usatton
in th. r t a t r e{eennrcttrut.anb to pa:fovm such other urorhs ?f rbuc=tfen.
char i t y unb r.ligion, as may ba brtermlnrb by i t s by. laws a n b p ~ r d u a n to the 9m.r
ol statutr. r s l n t i n s to the o r g o n f w t l o n of corporation. without sagitel sto~h.
Saib cerpovatien ahall hqv. the r i g h t to .;.ratve by pur~he,r,qlft,grant,s~t.~fPttm
srvv*.. kgu..t o r othcvwl.a. e n b re hola. imerou#. me ~ h- m- q el.r a s i s c l l o r othewzsc c n r
vry m a u r n an2 cstata real o r p ~ ~ s o n a l , n p b r q p r i a t ~ , no~r cu~r e~f u~ l~ t~h ay t t h c p u r
F.L, Of th' COV~OT.~,O~ may r.qui.;.,anD .I! 0 t h . ~ proparty which 'hell h.vr bs.nin&
foith ".rrg.g.b sr ~.,"~.>.b t. it by w.y 4 ..curity or in .at,sfaf.ction bcbh; it rhmll
haw the r i s h t te iwur momirorr n6t<,.or othar .vi>rnces of inbrbtcbncs. t o +ha same
<$tent a, ;orporattoni'which h i v r capital stock anb habe b u n org0niz.b unkr the
genaral law' ?f t h e ~ t a k i;t ma y cont rac t . sue anb be s u b , c omp l n i n s n b b.fmb
in any court.
s n i b corpomtfon shall have t h e right to mahc enb a csmmon .C~I anb a~
tar tha same, to make. nbopt an* ammb by-lau3.
arnmont qnb birection of ths corpevat(on. to f.8
to rrgulate the r l r c t i o n {f tru.t&s anb to c o i f ~ r
usually g t v r n in collegar snb univar.itia..
g h o u l 0 tharr be -n c,fcrr. of tncomr ivev <$ycnbitnarrs i n eny en. g<ar.or.*hculb
6.r. br any a,trt, r a m q i n i n i n j t r r ths pegmen+ of a l l e,dirting hb+. thensuch+
ce*. income or a,.ets +herreft<r rcmm,hsilIn bien apgplte b a.follows;pnth~nburtiar
of thr tuitten.1 f..r, er in the cstabli.hm~nt of ichdlhrships.or tn the sbvan<inggf
or .haritrblr f . r i l i t r e ~ :e ns. *n the ~ mof tthe bi.so1uti.m of the <or-potaHon.
anyr emaasi.cnts inor g &hal l br conuryrb.transf~kb~nb&li-b
h the Socirty 3 ~ r u sof 9 l r w &nglanb. a ~ l i ~a ni b ~c b u~c ast i ~ nc~orlp oratron
unber thz laus of the r t a t r of Z.Ra*sachu~ctts; tf roib 5oc1.t~ cf Jrsus of.Tlrur
6nglanb .hall n e t then be in r $ t r t m c e . then w i o asset. *,.on a<seolu+ionof the
rorporatiosnha. l l be eonvryra. transfcrreb anb be1iu.r.b to thc bishop of t h r Ro-
C.thelic btocl.. of Xartforb eonnrcticut. for the urrr anbpurpo..r of..ib bioc#.r.
.V it, SU,..~~O-S sna n. .ai.. t h ~ ~ ~ ~ f t e ~i.fi mnibb ,R oma n Cetholir bioce.. rhmll
n e t than be (n rp.tensr, 1h.n saia a.rrtr .hmll b. conver.9 t ~ ~ ~ r fan~b br d~i ut- b
rreb to the state of eonnccticut.
Fig. 2. The Charter of Fairfield University.
The new charter provided the protection and autonomy
so eagerly desired for the future university. That desire
was, perhaps, the most clearly stated in his letter to
Zacheus Maher, S.J. shortly before the granting of the
charter:
So with God's help we should soon have an aca-demic
status that will protect us against the haz-ards
of changing politics and policies and provide
that necessary autonomy for protection against an
unfriendly Board of Education in the state in any
program of expansion that the far future may de-mand.
By acquiring the title of University,
rather than our present College, we shall be pro-tected
against the recurrence of that unfortunate
incident in Massachusetts when several years after
the granting of the charter of Boston College, a
Methodist Institution was chartered with the
legal title of Boston University (incidentally
B.U. is referred to at times with a certain grim
humor as the largest Catholic College for men in
New England) .43
Dolan filed an application with the War Production
Board in Bridgeport for the permit to build the first per-manent
building (Freshman-Sophomore building) in his grand
scheme on May 8. Six days later it was received in the
Washington office, where it finally received favorable
approval on June 5, 1945. The permit stipulated that con-struction
had to begin within 90 days.
43~ames H. Dolan, S.J. to Zacheus J. Maher, S.J.,
27 April 1945, Dolan Papers, FUA. (Shortly before its cen-tennial
in 1963, Boston College seriously considered changing
its name to reflect its university status. A commission was
duly appointed and new names were suggested. However, the
issue was eventually resolved by retaining the traditional
name of the institution.)
Dolan quickly requested a $100,000 construction loan
from the New England Province, but his request was rejected
by the Provincial Consultors on July 10. He then proposed
that a $450,000 bank loan be sought. While Zacheus J. Maher,
S.J. felt "reluctant to approve so large a debt, in addition
to that already owing the P r ~ v i n c e , "he~ ~a ssured Dolan that
the proposal would be presented to Norbert de Boynes, S.J.,
Jesuit Vicar General in Rome.
While Rome deliberated, Dolan submitted a detailed
analysis of the institution's acute construction needs to
John McEleney, S.J. His analysis served as a convincing
apologia for the Jesuit corporate presence in the state of
Connecticut:
Permit me to stress here that it is of para-mount
importance to the future welfare of the
Province that its ministries be not too narrowly
restricted to the School and Church foundations
in Boston and to nearby Holy Cross College,
located at less than forty miles from Boston.
The effects of this provincialism in such a nar-rowly
restricted area have been a matter of con-cern
to many who are devoted to the best interests
of the Province . . . the States of Connecticut
and Massachusetts provide the only solid hope of
the expansion of the apostolic ministries of the
Province, especially in the field of education,
and that further the interests of this first School
of the Society in Connecticut at such critical time
rather than to restrict its expansion and progress. 4 5
44~acheus J. Maher, S.J. to James H. Dolan, S.J.,
18 July 1945, Dolan Papers, FUA.
45~ames H. Dolan, S.J. to John J. McEleney, S.J.,
20 August 1945, Dolan Papers, FUA.
In September 1945, 613 students were enrolled at
Fairfield College Preparatory School. In contrast to the
previous fall, the Freshman Class enrollment of 215 was cur-tailed
because of limited accommodations. Seventy of the
incoming freshmen attended class at McAuliffe Hall, while the
remainder attended class at Loyola Hall in Bridgeport, which
had been acquired the previous May.46
On November 29, 1945, Zacheus Maher, S.J. informed
Dolan that Vicar General Norbert de Boynes, S.J. had decided
to allow Fairfield University to seek the $450,000 loan it so
desperately needed to build its Freshmen-Sophomore classroom
building. 47
At the same time, the eighteen-acre Edward B.
Moorehouse property at the corner of North Benson and Barlow
went up for sale for a $30,000 pricetag. Its availability
provoked a good deal of discussion among the Jesuits, not all
of it favorable to the purchase. Province Consultor and
Fairfield College Preparatory School Principal Leo A. Reilly,
46~oyola Hall was formerly the Frederick E. Morgan
home at 200 Park Place in the Seaside Park area of Bridgeport.
With a Province loan, the estate was bought for $20,694.12 by
May 10, 1945. It was occupied by Fairfield College Prepara-tory
School for two years, from 1945-47. (A small number of
Jesuits lived at Loyola Hall during this two-year period as
well.) The property was leased to the University of
Bridgeport from the fall of 1947 to the fall of 1951, when
it was sold to them.
47~acheus J. Maher, S.J. to James H. Dolan, S.J.,
29 November 1945, Dolan Papers, FUA.
S.J. communicated his strong objection to such a purchase in
his November 25, 1945 letter to John McEleney, S.J.:
I feel that the spending of money on such a
project is leading us farther away from the present
and pressing need, a classroom building. Unless we
limit registration this coming year, and I feel
that we should do so, we are committed to sinking
some more thousands of dollars into remodelling the
third floor at Park Place [Loyola Hall]. More money
for unsuitable accommodations. Wouldn't it be wiser
to hoard the money we spend in this fashion every
year and-put up a decent classroom building, even of
eight rooms, such as the little Grassmere
Three days later, McEleney informed Dolan that
Zacheus Maher, S.J. had authorized the Corporation to pur-chase
the property if the price did not exceed $20,000.~~
Because of the purchasing limit, the possibility of acquiring
this significant piece of property appeared very slight
But, by the end of March, an $8,500 contribution by the
Bellarmine Fathers Club made the Moorehouse Family's uncom-promising
demand less prohibitive. Thus, on April 1, 1946,
the Edward B. Moorehouse estate was finally purchased for
By July, a brand-new application for a government
permit had been sought to build the Freshmen-Sophomore
building. The time limit on the previous permit of June 5,
1945 had expired due to Rome's delay in authorizing Dolan to
48~eoA . Reilly, S.J. to John J. McEleney, S.J.,
25 November 1945, McEleney Papers, FUA.
49~ohn J. McEleney, S.J. to James H. Dolan, S.J.,
28 November 1945, McEleney Papers, FUA.
borrow $450,000 for a construction loan. 50 Although the
application was denied at the local level, Dolan's personal
appeal in Washington proved to be so convincing that the per-mit
was granted on August 9, 1946. The written confirmation
of this approval was made on August 16.
Having received the necessary building permit from
Washington, Dolan quickly arranged a meeting with Mr. William
Cahill of the Newton-Waltham Bank and Trust Company in order
to secure a construction loan. By September 24, a $450,000
loan with a remarkably low interest rate of one percent had
been negotiated. At the same time, J. Gerald Phelan had
nearly finished the architectural plans for the new building.
Phelan, a partner in the Bridgeport firm of Fletcher and
Thompson, Engineers, had replaced Oliver Reagan as the
University's Consulting Architect five months earlier.
One month before Christmas of 1946, the new seal for
the University was completed. (See Figure 3 . ) The new seal
was a slight modification of the original one completed on
August 1, 1942 by Gerald Mears, S.J. It was thereafter used
in official University publications.
The following is the official interpretation of the
University seal:
Fairfield's seal combines elements of its several
traditions. The gold pine cones come from the
Bellarmine family coat of arms. Superimposed on them
50~inutes of the Corporation, February 10, 1947,
Office of the President.
Fig. 3. Seal of Fairfield University of
St. Robert Bellannine
is the badge of the Society of Jesus - the letter
IHS, surmounted by the cross and surrounded by the
instruments of Christ's passion - to indicate that
the University is in the care of members of the
same religious family. There are three components
in the upper portion of the shield, because 'the
school is dedicated and exists in the Name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.'
The central compartment portrays a hart crossing a
ford, a part of the coat of arms of the Diocese of
Hartford and an example of 'canting arms' wherein
the pronunciation of the symbol is the same as
that of the bearer. Finally, the two outer com-partments
show clusters of grapes, charges taken
from the town seal and symbolic of the fertility
of the verdant fields of the Town and County of
~airfield.51
On January 4, the building contract was awarded to
the E. & F. Construction Company of Bridgeport, and two days
later the ground-breaking ceremonies were held. At Dolan's
suggestion, the new Freshmen-Sophomore building was named
Berchmans Hall after seventeenth-century Jesuit Saint, John
Berchmans. 52 (See Figure 1. )
At a Fathers and Sons banquet on February 16, 1947,
Dolan made the public announcement that college classes would
begin the following September. His announcement surprised
many, including some of his Jesuit confreres inasmuch as the
decision was made "two years in advance of the original
schedule. ,153
51Fairfield University Catalogue (1951), Vol. 5, No. 1,
p. 16, FUA.
52~inutes of the Corporation, February 19, 1947.
53~airfield University Building Fund Brochure,
May 1947, p. 10, FUA.
The original schedule was accelerated for several
reasons :
The first is the high degree of universal and
encouraging enthusiasm with which the people of
Fairfield County and the surrounding areas have
voiced their approval of the College-Preparatory
School. The second reason rises from the repeated
and widespread requests for the opening of the
College Department from the days of the opening
year of this first Jesuit educational foundation
in Connecticut.
An added reason of major influence in leading
to this decision comes automatically from the
critical need for the prompt mobilizing of all
available educational resources to meet the re-quirements
of the young men returning from mili-tary
service in the recent World War who are so
intent upon availing themselves of the opportuni-ties
provided for their continued education under
the federal law known as the 'G.I. Bill of ~i~htsI.54
Dolan's major announcement prompted a complimentary
editorial in The Fairfield News twelve 'days later:
Many of us are breathless at the foresight and
vision which is prompting the Jesuit Order to bring
to Fairfield a new University, to be known as Fair-field
University.
We are breathless not just at the thought of
having a distinguished university founded here in
our town, but because of the tremendous possibili-ties
for the growth of the town, itself, which
this can entail.
This is one of the most important ventures
ever to occur in Fairfield and the challenge is
now squarely before us. In return for what the
university will bring to Fairfield, we must be
prepared to offer recompense.
54~airife ld University Building Fund Brochure, May
1947, p, 10, FUA. (Dolan's announcement was also motivated
by competitive concern over nearby Bridgeport Junior College,
which had achieved university status in May 1947. James H.
Dolan, S.J. to John J. McEleney, S.J., 17 January 1947, Dolan
Papers, FUA.)
We must be ready, for instance, to offer a town
which has sufficient business, entertainment, and
aesthetics to make students and faculty alike glad
that their university be located in Fairfield, and
not in Bridgeport. We must be able to serve their
needs here at home and also, incidentally, to en-hance
our own businesses on the profits which their
local buying will bring.
Fairfield must have sewer facilities adequate
for the type of school plant which the university
will bring. It must have a business center worthy
of the name. Its people must be prepared to wel-come
this new intelligentsia into our civic life
so that both we and they may profit reciprocally
from the contact.
Fairfield University will bring a tremendous
challenge to the town, and it may well change the
entire complexion of our community - for the good.
We are acquiring one of the most distinguished and
outstanding education orders in the world. The
Jesuits have brought and fostered knowledge wher-ever
they have settled. We welcome the new univer-sity
and hope that we may serve them in more ways
than just as the geographical site of their new
school. 55
On April 27, an $800,000 Building Fund Campaign was
launched under the direction of Stamford Industrialist
Alphonse J. Donahue and Raymond Flicker, Vice President and
Treasurer of the Post Publishing Company in Bridgeport.56 A
large contingent of laymen was also enlisted to serve as local
committee chairmen.
55~heF airfield News, February 28, 1947, p. 2.
56~here is no solid evidence to demonstrate that
the previous Campaign (~cEleney's1 943 million dollar drive)
was ever activated.
Hartford Bishop Henry J. O'Brien contributed $5,000
to the campaign in June. 57 In his letter to Executive Chair-man
Donahue, O'Brien said:
I assure you that I am deeply concerned with
the success of this drive to provide a Catholic
education for the young men of Fairfield County
and I am sure that you may depend upon the whole-hearted
cooperation of the pastors of that area
in helping you to make the campaign a success.58
In spite of the dedicated volunteer efforts of all
those connected with the campaign, only a little over a
quarter of the goal was reached. The campaign essentially
failed to reach its intended goal for two reasons: "[It] was
extremely short, beginning May first and ending in July. At
no time did it attract really major contributors."59
On May 14, 1947, Dolan received permission to have
the plans drawn up for the second building.60 In his letter
to Dolan, McEleney also expressed the following caution:
Far be it from me to take away any of your
laurels or lessen such a free encomium. But
Father General has also written us Provincials
begging us to beware of over-expansion of our
works by new schools and excessive enrollments.
He has asked us to let him know what we are
doing to eliminate even existin schools that
overcrowd the hours of our men. 11
57 "~airife ld University Building Fund List of Con-tributors",
p. 31, FUA. See also A. J. Donahue to Rev.
John J. Hayes, 23 June 1947, 1947 Campaign Papers, FUA.
58~heB ridgeport Post, June 25, 1947, p. 9.
59~urcotte, "A History of Fairfield University", p. 27.
60~ohn J. McEleney, S. J. to James H. Dolan, S.J.,
14 May 1947, Dolan Papers, FUA.
61~bid.
The ground-breaking ceremonies for the second build-ing
were held on August 22, 1947. According to Dolan's
original plan, the new building was designed to be the Junior-
Senior building and would be built parallel to Berchmans Hall.
(See Figure 1.) It was later named "Xavier Hall" after
sixteenth-century missionary and saint, Francis Xavier. Like
Berchmans Hall, the construction contract was awarded to the
E. & F. Construction Company.
In September 1947, the College of Arts and Sciences
of Fairfield University of Saint Robert Bellarmine admitted
its first freshman class. This event not only enhanced and
enlarged the Jesuit corporate presence in the State of Con-necticut,
but marked the first venture of Catholic higher
education for men in that state as well.
CHAPTER I1
POWER AND PARTNERSHIP: THE EVOLUTION OF UNIVERSITY
GOVERNANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
Corporate Control and Ecclesiastical Authority
During its first nineteen years as a chartered univer-sity,
three distinguished Jesuits served as president: James
H. Dolan (1945-1951); Joseph D. FitzGerald (1951-1958); and
James E. FitzGerald (1958-1964) .l In addition to their duties
as president, each served as rector of the university's Jesuit
community and president of Fairfield College Preparatory
School.
l~eteran Jesuit administrator James H. Dolan, S.J. was
previously the president and rector of Boston College (1925-
1932). Following his term at Boston College, Dolan was
appointed assistant to the New England provincial (1932-1937).
He then became provincial of the New England province and
served in that capacity until 1944. During his term as pro-vincial,
Dolan founded Fairfield College Preparatory School.
Dolan replaced John J. McEleney, S.J. as president and rector
of Fairfield College Preparatory School on December 18, 1944.
Through his skillful orchestration, the university received
its unrestricted charter from the state of Connecticut on
May 29, 1945. Dolan was succeeded by Joseph D. FitzGerald,
S.J., as rector and president on October 18, 1951. Prior to
his appointment, FitzGerald was Dean of the College of the
Holy Cross from 1939-1948. In the summer of 1948, he became
assistant director of the New England regional office of the
Jesuit Educational Association in Boston. Three years later,
he assumed the duties of New England provincial director of
studies for the three Jesuit colleges in New England. Joseph
D. FitzGerald, S.J. was succeeded by James E. FitzGerald, S.J.
on May 1, 1958. James FitzGerald had been Dean of the College
of the Holy Cross from 1948-1958.
During the nineteen year span of these three presiden-tial
administrations, the university's relationship to its
sponsoring body, the Society of Jesus, remained essentially
unaltered. This relationship was defined in the university's
original statutes in the following manner:
As an institutional member of the Jesuit Educa-tional
Association, this college, as all other
American Jesuit institutions, is subject to the
general control of the Jesuit Order.
This control is exercised mediately by the
Superior General of the Jesuit Order and his con-sultors
in Rome [Italy]; immediately by the Pro-vincial
Superior and his consultors who constitute
the Board of Control for all educational institu-tions
in the particular prwince. The Provincial
is the Chairman ex officio of this Board of Control.
On the recommendation of the Board of Control,
the Superior General of the Order appoints the
President of the college.2
Created, in 1934 by FatherGeneral ~lodomir Ledochowski,
S.J., the Jesuit Educational Association (JEA) included all
educational institutions conducted by American Jesuits in the
United States and the foreign mi~sions.~Ac cording to its
Constitution, the JEA was organized to "promote and make more
efficient all educational activities of American Jes~its."~
The Board of Governors of the JEA consisted of the
eight provincials of the Jesuit provinces of the United States
2~airfield University - May 6, 1949, "Statutes of the
College of Arts and Sciences", Article 111, p. 2, FUA.
3~onstitution of the Jesuit Educational Association
(New York: Jesuit Educational Association, September 1948),
p. 25. (This document may be found in the JEA Collection in
the Boston College Archives.)
(Maryland, New York, New England, Chicago, Missouri, New
Orleans, California and Oregon). As a group, the provincials
set policies and standards for the Jesuit educational insti-tutions
in the United States. As indiyiduals, each provin-cial
played a direct role in the governance and molding of
all Jesuit educational institutions within his particular
province. By virtue of their location, Fairfield University,
Boston College and College of the Holy Cross were subject to
the jurisdiction of the New England provincial, stationed in
Boston.
During its first nineteen years as a chartered in-stitution,
Fairfield University's administrative and gov-ernance
structures also remained essentially unaltered in
form. Membership in "Fairfield University of Saint Robert
Bellarmine, Incorporated" (the university's legal corporation)
was restricted to Jesuits and tended to be composed of uni-versity
administrators. Similarly, the university's top-level
administration remained small, highly centralized and
restricted to Jesuit clerics.
The remarkable degree of structural consistency in
governance and administration between 1945 and 1964 was not
peculiar to Fairfield University. Indeed, it closely re-sembled
the pattern of all other Jesuit institutions through-out
the United States, each of which was subject to the same
5~y-laws of Fairfield University of Saint Robert
Bellarmine, Incorporated, Article I, Minutes of the Corpora-tion,
June 9, 1945, p. 2.
expectations and regulations from religious superiors in Rome
or provincial offices. These expectations and regulations
were codified into an elaborate and exacting list, requiring
permission for everything from changes intuition rates to
the erection of new building^.^ According to John D. Donovan,
the pattern of tight control by religious superiors over
educational institutions could also be found at nearly any
other American Catholic college which was sponsored and con-ducted
by a religious order:
The facts are well known. In Catholic colleges
and universities, the ultimate authority for major
academic policies and practices resides outside the
college, in the office of the ecclesiastically-defined
superior of the religious group chartered
to administer the institution. This authority-figure
(the bishop in the case of a diocesan col-lege
and the provincial superior in the case of a
congregation-administered college) does not usually
concern himself with every academic policy and
practice but represents a formal negative authority.
The immediate deliberative authority is entrusted
to the priests and brothers by, and directly re-sponsible
to, the extra-university ecclesiastical
official. Basically, this also explains why the
deans in Catholic colleges are almost always
religious and why, even at the departmental level,
the qualified priest is more likely to be chairman
than his lay colleague is. Structurally, there-fore,
the work situation of the Catholic religious
and lay professor is defined and controlled by pol-icies
and practices on which they need not be con-sulted
and to which religious considerations have
a pervasive relevance. 7
6~roceedings,C ommission on Colleges and Universities,
Los Angeles, January 13-15, 1967, Appendix A, pp. 13-16,
JEA Collection.
7~ohn D. Donovan, The Academic Man in the Catholic
College (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1964), p. 173.
The governance and administrative structure at Fair-field
University was scrutinized by an accrediting team from
the state of Connecticut in February 1955. While it praised
the administration for its dedicated commitment and "deep
interest in the welfare of the students", the six-man team
offered a critical analysis of the university's organization:
The general administrative organization of Fair-field
University evidences a high degree of concen-tration.
The Board of Trustees consists of seven
members, five of whom are members of the administra-tion
and the other two members of the teaching staff.
The Academic Council consists of three administrative
officers and the coordinators of the four divisions.
This involves a great degree of over-lapping between
membership of the Board of Trustees, administrative
officers, and the faculty committee. It has been
found to be sound educational practice to separate
these three types of functions. Typically, the
Board of Trustees consists of 'members drawn from a
range of occupations,' and it is a governing body
to which the administrative officers are responsible.
When the Board of Trustees and the administrative
officers are essentially the same individuals, the
administrative officers become responsible to them-selves.
It is true that in this case they are also
responsible to the Jesuit Educational Association
of the United States, but this does not provide the
type of control and stimulus and the broad community
base found in the typical organization of the Board
of Trustees. It is likely that the specific defi-nition
of powers and responsibilities of a Board
consisting of members not connected with the staff
of the institution, including lay members, would
have to reflect the organization of the Jesuit
institutions, but it is believed that serious con-sideration
should be given to the establishment of
such a ~oard.
8~eport of the Inspection of Fairf ield University
by an Evaluating Committee of the Connecticut Council on
Higher Education", February 15 and 16, 1955, p. A-1, Office
of the President.
This accrediting team also urged the university's
administration to increase the faculty's role, especially the
lay faculty, in the "determination of policy, including such
problems as curriculum, scholastic standards, and policies
affecting the staff itself. Specifically, it urged the
administration to decrease its dominance of faculty commit-tees,
especially the Academic Council. This particular com-mittee,
however, remained entirely composed of Jesuit admin-istrators
until 1960.
The administrative practice of excluding faculty from
any serious policy-making was a common theme at any other
American Jesuit and Catholic college. In a stirring address '
before a convocation of Jesuit college presidents in 1960,
Boston College Dean William Van Etten Casey, S.J. examined
the subservient position of faculty at Jesuit institutions:
We have delegated to our faculty the responsi-bility
of educating our students, but we have not
delegated to them any of the necessary and corre-sponding
educational authority. We say to them:
'You have full responsibility for educating these
students, but you have no authority or power to
make any changes that you consider essential for
carrying out your responsibility.' This policy
tends to make our faculty a flock of sheep, fre-quently
reluctant, sometimes bitter. They go
through their paces dutifully; time passes;
interest wanes. There is no passionate commit-ment
because there is no feeling of deep involve-ment.
We are faced with a serious dilemma. Are
we to continue our present methods, living on in
our educational ghetto, segregated from the main-stream
of American higher education? Or, by mod-ifying
our procedures, are we going to bring our
faculty into a deeper involvement and, therefore,
bid., p. A-3.
into a more enthusiastic commitment by delegating
to them the educational authority that necessarily
belongs to their educational responsibility? This
looks to me like the crucial issue for the American
Catholic and Jesuit higher education. If we con-tinue
to treat our faculty like students, then the
faculty will continue to treat their students like
children.10
John D. Donovan pointed out that the "professional
disenfranchisement" of faculty prompted the formation of
campus chapters of the American Association of University
Professors (AAUP) at many Catholic institutions.ll These
chapters not only linked professors at Catholic colleges to
their colleagues at non-Catholic institutions, but "symbol-ized
the lay professors' need for a professionally-oriented
rather than a religiously-oriented authority base for work
. policies and practices."l2
Fairfield University's AAUP chapter was approved by
President Joseph D. FitzGerald, S.J. on November 29, 1956.13
The original request was made by chemistry professor Dr. John
A. Barone:
About a month ago, I spoke to Father Healy [Dean
of the College] concerning a membership drive for
'O~illiam Van Etten Casey, S.J., "The Climate of the
Intellect", Proceedings, Conference of Presidents of Jesuit
Colleges and Universities, Boston College, June 10-11, 1960,
Appendix C, pp. 40-41, JEA Collection.
'l~onovan, The Academic Man in the Catholic College,
p. 174.
121bid.
13~oseph D. FitzGerald, S.J. to Dr. John A. Barone,
29 November, 1956, J. D. FitzGerald Papers, FUA.
the Am. Association of Univ. Prof., and he assured
me that there would be no objection.
Since that time, enough members of the faculty
(all lay) have joined so that we are eligible to
form a local chapter and have been so informed by
national headquarters. I should like to make cer-tain
of your approval before we actually proceed
to form a chapter.
If you are considering a negative reply, may
I suggest 'Catholics and the AAUP' by Father Henry
Browne, of Catholic University, in the October 5,
1956 issue of THE COMMONWEAL (Page 10). This
article, a request from the national office, Father
Healy's approval, and the fact that both Holy Cross
and Boston College have chapters served as factors
in the decision of members of the faculty to take
their places among their professional colleagues by
joining the AAUP.
I do not know what the policy is concerning the
desirability of members of the Society of Jesus
joining; but as long as they teach half time or
more (and ay their dues), I believe they are
eligible. lf
A constitution for the Fairfield chapter of the AAUP
was created in February, 1957. Shortly after its creation,
the AAUP gently prodded the university's administration to
develop formal policies with respect to faculty. In 1959,
specific policies regarding rank and tenure, promotion pro-cedures
and salary schedules were formulated.15 In develop-ment
of these policies, Fairfield University began to more
14~r. John A. Barone to Joseph D. Fitzgerald, S.J.,
24 November 1956, J. D. FitzGerald Papers, FUA. (When a
chapter of the AAUP was established on the Fairfield campus,
it joined 1008 other chapters throughout the nation.)
15"1959, The University Faculty", FUA. (See Edward J.
Power's remarks on the standardization of policies and prac-tices
with recrard to facultv in other American Catholic
colleges in catholic ~i~her'Education in America: A History
[New York: Appleton-Cencury Crafts, 19721, p. 420.)
closely resemble its secular counterparts. Yet, the univer-sity's
governance, administration and disciplined relation-ship
to religious superiors in Rome and Boston still set it
apart. These, too, however would undergo significant change
during the presidential term of William Charles McInnes, S.J.
(1964-1973).
University Aggiornamento
On June 16, 1964, forty-one-year-old William McInnes
was installed as Rector of the Jesuit cornunity and President
of Fairfield University of Saint Robert ~e1larmine.l~ Like
his three predecessors, McInnes had been nominated for this
position by the New England provincial and appointed by
Father General of the Society of Jesus. The following is
McInnes' recollection of the manner in which he was nominated
and informed of the appointment:
I was chosen by the provincial of the New England
province [John V. O'Connor, S.J.], who after consul-tation
with his consultors and other people in the
province, selected me without my knowledge and then
one day literally informed me that I was to be the
president of Fairfield. That's the way it was done
in 1963.
He called me up one night when I was at Boston
College and he said: 'I'd like to meet you.' Now,
I hadn't received many calls from the provincial in
my life, but I said 'fine'. I said, 'I'm here at
Saint Mary's Hall' [the Jesuit residence at Boston
16~mmediately prior to his appointment as president of
Fairfield University and rector of the Jesuit community,
McInnes served as Associate Dean of the College of Business
Administration at Boston College. McInnes was educated at
Boston College (B.S. 1944 and M.A. 1950) and New York Univer-sity
(Ph.D. 1954). He joined the New England province of the
Society of Jesus on September 7, 1946 and was ordained a
priest in 1957.
College]. 'Well', he said, 'I'd like to meet you,
not in the Jesuit community, but outside, so I'll
meet you in the car'. So, he came up. It was dark
when he came by and he drove. It sounded rather
mysterious to me. I hadn't been involved in any-thing
like that before. So he called me over to
the car and he said, 'I'd like to take a little
ride'. We took a little ride. He said, 'I'm
thinking of changing your life'. I said, 'Well,
that's interesting. What did you have in mind?'
He said, 'I've decided that it would be good if you
were the president of Fairfield University and rec-tor
of the Jesuit community. So, I'd like you to
start planning for it. '17
William McInnes was formally installed as president on
October 27, 1964. In his inaugural address entitled "The
Religious University In a Pluralistic Society", McInnes laid
out the religious and philosophic agenda for his administra-tion:
This university, religiously committed, is ded-icated
to learning. In our modern pluralistic
society it will seek always to widen the horizons
of man's world and to seek the beauty of God's uni-verse.
While it will proclaim no monopoly on truth,
it does announce its continuing interest in all
truth, in the world's dust as well as in man's des-tiny,
in man's reason as well as in God's mystery.
Further, we declare that this university is
open to all men regardless of race, creed or color.
While no institution in a pluralistic society is of
universal attraction to all, we publicly state that
for anyone in the community the primary qualifica-tion
for entrance here is an interest in seeking and
knowing and treasuring the truth wherever you may
find it.
Fairfield University further declares its own
religious commitment. It is our firm conviction
that we can make our greatest contribution to both
the city of God and the city of man by a greater
explication of our faith rather than by a denial of
it. We recognize that to render to Caesar the
17~aped interview with William C. McInnes, S. J.,
March 18, 1984, FUA.
things that are Caesar's and to God the things that
are God's does not imply compartments in our personal
life but onl-y a sharing of our human and divine ener-gies.
Finally we accept wholeheartedly our role in this
community. We seek to be not so much privileged cit-izens
as major contri,butors, and though we have but
one gift to give--the gift of intellect--we pledge
that gift to preserve what is best of the past and to
explore what is most promising for the future.l8
William McInnes was installed as president and rec-tor
during the Roman Catholic Church's Twenty-First Ecumeni-cal
Council or, as it is known popularly, Vatican I1 (1962-
65). Convened in Rome by Pope John XXIII, Vatican I1 was
designed to effect an international "aggiornamento" or
renewal of Roman Catholic liturgical practice and ecclesi-astical
structure. Vatican I1 called for a renewal of the
apostolates connected with the Roman Catholic Church, such
as the higher education apostolate. It also elevated the
role of laymen to full and equal partnership with clergy and
religious in the apostolates connected with the Roman Catho-lic
Church:
By divine institution Holy Church is structured
and governed with a wonderful diversity. 'For just
as in one body we have many members, yet all the
members have not the same function, so we, the many
are one body in Christ, but severally members one
of another' (Rom. 12:4-5).
Therefore, the chosen People of God is one:
'one Lord, one faith, one baptism' (Eph. 4 : 5 ) . As
members, they share a common dignity from their
rebirth in Christ . . . the same path, nevertheless,
all are called to sanctity and have received an
equal privilege of faith through the justice of God
(cf 2 Pet. 1:l). And if by the will of Christ some
18"~heR eligious University In a Pluralistic
Society." p. 12-13, McInnes Papers, FUA.
are made teachers, dispensers of mysteries, and
shepherds on behalf of others, yet all share a
true equality with regard to the dignity and to
the activity common to all the faithful for the
building up of the Body of Christ. . . . The lay
apostolate is a participation in the saving mis-sion
of the Church itself.19
The Second Vatican Council had a significant impact
on the Society of Jesus and its worldwide apostolate. Fol-lowing
the Council's lead, the Jesuits initiated a rigorous
self-examination and renewal through the Thirty-First Gen-eral
Congregation, held in 1965 and 1966. At this Congrega-tion,
the Jesuits re-affirmed their historic commitment to
the apostolate of education. They also affirmed the legiti-mate
and, indeed, indispensable role of laymen in the Jesuit'
educational apostolate:
According to the mind of the Second Vatican
Council, a close collaboration with the laity is
recommended. On the one hand we can give them
help in their formation by schools, conferences,
spiritual exercises and other suitable works, and
by our friendly dealing with them and the testi-mony
of our life. On the other hand, let Jesuits
consider the importance for the Society itself of
such collaboration with lay people, who will al-ways
be the natural interpreters for us of the
modern world, and so will always give us effective
help in this apostolate. Therefore, we should
consider handing over to them the roles they are
prepared to assume in the work of education,
whether these be in teaching, in academic and
business administration, or even on the board of
directors.
It will also be advantageous to consider
whether it would not be helpful to establish in
some of our institutions of higher education a
19~alter M. Abbott, S.J. Editor, The Documents of
Vatican I1 (New York: America Press, 1966), p. 648.
board of trustees which is composed partly of Jesuits
and partly of lay people; the responsibility both of
ownership and of direction shall pertain to this
board. 20
While the Second Vatican Council provided ample re-ligious
justification for Fairfield University and other
Catholic colleges to broaden the scope of their governance
and administration, a significant court decision in the state
of Maryland supplied the motivating legal urgency. The case
was Horace Mann League v. Board of Public Works. It was
decided by the Maryland Court of Appeals on June 2, 1966.
At issue in this case was the constitutionality of
four private, church-related colleges to receive direct
state matching grants for the construction of buildings:
Notre Dame College, St. Joseph's College, Western Maryland
College and Hood College. Notre Dame and St. Joseph's were
affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church; Western Maryland
with the Methodist Church and Hood with the United Church of
Christ.
After a thorough scrutiny of the total environment
at each college, especially governance and administration,
Notre Dame, St. Joseph's and Western Maryland were judged by
the Court to be so pervas=vely sectarian that the effect of
direct government aid would be the promotion of religion.
Thus, these three institutions could not be considered
20~ocuments of the Thirty-First General Congregation
(Washington, D.C.: Conference of Major Superiors of Jesuits,
undated), p. 95.
eligible to receive direct government construction grants
without violating the First Amendment of the United States
Constitution. An appeal was filed, but, on November 14,
1966, the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.21
The Horace Mann decision had a powerful and stirring
effect on Jesuit colleges and universities throughout the
nation.22 In January 1967, the JEA enlisted the aid of
Baltimore attorney Francis X. Gallagher to analyze the pos-sible
impact of the decision on American Jesuit colleges and
universities. 23 Speaking from his experience as the lead
counsel for St. Joseph's College in the Horace Mann case,
Gallagher strongly urged radical changes in the governance
and administrative structures of Jesuit institutions to
guard against a repeat of the Horace Mann decision.
Mr. Gallagher's influential recommendation included
the following:
1. That the method of appointing the members of
the college board of trustees be modified to allow
a greater number of laymen, thus effecting a better
balance on the board and eliminating any real or
apparent unbridled authority in a religious superior.
21~orace Mann League v. Board of Public Works, (Md
1966), 220 A. 2d 51, Cert. denied and appeal dismissed, 17
L. ed. 2d 195.
22~aul A. Fitzgerald, S. J., The Governance of Jesuit
Colleges in the United States (Notre Dame, Indiana: Univer-sity
of Notre Dame Press, 1984), p. 212.
23~roceedings, Commission on Colleges and Universi-sities,
Los Angeles, January 13-15, 1967, pp. 6-8, JEA
Collection.
2. That more laymen be brought into college
administration and be eligible to assume such sen-sitive
positions as chairmanships of departments,
and higher administrative posts.
3. That members of the lay faculty be given
tenure and sabbatical leaves, and be eligible for
promotion in a manner comparable to those in non-church-
connected schools and institutions.
4. That the lay faculty have an equal and
effective voice with the religious faculty in
setting the policy direction of the college.
5. That the stated corporate objectives be
consistent with the primary aim of the college,
and the college charter be amended accordingly;
that religious motivations be placed in proper
perspective so as to eliminate an undue emphasis
on the so-called permeation theory.
6. That the title to property of a church-related
college be vested in the college corpor-ation
itself.
7. That a distinction be made between the
college president the the college community
religious superior, and that the powers of each
be clearly defined.
8. That bookkeeping methods, and all liter-ature
emanating,from the college--college cata-logues,
alumni bulletins, fund-raising brochures--
be examined in light of the foregoing recommenda-tions.
24
In January 1967, William McInnes requested permis-sion
from Father General Pedro Arrupe, S.J. to add three
laymen to Fairfield University of Saint Robert Bellarmine,
Incorporated:
In line with the recent spirit of the General
Congregation, and wishing to adapt to the partic-ular
educational environment of the United States,
I believe it would be greatly to our advantage to
add some lay members to the legal governing body
of this University.
Our by-laws allow up to ten members. Having
three laymen added to the present seven members
would strengthen the Board in the eyes of the
state and it also brings a new perspective to our
governing body. There is no danger under these
conditions of the alienation of property nor of the
loss of control by the Society of Jesus. Hence I
respectfully request that we be allowed to explore
this possibility.25
In October 1967, New England provincial John V.
O'Connor, S.J. informed McInnes that Pedro Arrupe had granted
the request.26 However, prior to adding laymen to its
25~illiam C. McInnes, S.J. to Pedro Arrupe, S.J.,
10 January 1967, McInnes Papers, FUA.
26~ohnV . O'Connor, S.J. to William C. McInnes, S.J.,
5 October 1967, McInnes Papers, FUA. (In 1967, the govern-ing
boards of Saint Louis University and the University of
Notre Dame were transformed into predominantly lay ones, each
headed by a lay chairman. In typically American fashion,
each claims to be the first to accomplish this task. ["Ful-filling
Sorin's Dream: The Hesburgh Years", p. 11, undated,
University of Notre Dame Archives and George E. Ganss, S.J.,
The Jesuit Educational Tradition and Saint Louis University -
Some Bearings for the University's Sesquicentennial 1818-1968
(Saint Louis: St. Louis University, 19691, p. 49.3 In fact,
Saint Louis University preceded the University of Notre Dame
by two months. [St. Louis approved the change on January 21,
1967.1 Although the revised by-laws at both of these uni-versities
are similar, there is one essential difference:
"Notre Dame's revision provides for a condition of no future
change in the purpose of the institution." [Sr. M. Therese
Antone, R.S.M. "Governance of Catholic Colleges Sponsored
by Religious Communities: A Case Study", Unpublished, Ed.D.
dissertation, Harvard University, 1981, p. 54.3
The president of Saint Louis University, Paul C.
Reinert, S.J., and the president of the University of Notre
Dame, Theodore Hesburgh, C.S.C., both played a pivotal role
in the development of a consensus statement on the evolving
nature of the Catholic university. The document, entitled,
the "Land 0' Lakes Statement", was formulated during a
meeting of prominent American Catholic educators and uni-versity
presidents on July 20-21, 1967 at Land O'Lakes,
Wisconsin. In this consensus statement, special emphasis
was devoted to the organization and administration of Catho-lic
universities: "The evolving nature of the Catholic
university will necessitate basic reorganizations of struc-ture
in order not only to achieve a greater internal cooper-ation
and participation, but also to share the responsibility
of direction more broadly and to enlist wider support. A
great deal of study and experimentation will be necessary
to carry out these changes, but changes of this kind are
membership, the university's corporation added Charles F.
Donovan, S.J., Senior Vice President and Dean of Faculties
at Boston College, and James J. McGinley, S.J., Director of
the Center for Social Studies in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
The addition of these two distinguished Jesuit educators on
September 27, 1968 served as the corporation's first attempt
to draw members from outside the university's internal com-munity.
Two days before Donovan and McGinley were added to
the university's Corporation, Fairfield University and three
other Connecticut Catholic colleges (Annhurst, Albertus
Magnus and Sacred Heart) were served with a Complaint challen-ging
the constitutionality of federal construction grants
each received under Title 1 of the Higher Education Facili-ties
Act of 1963. By virtue of their official roles, three
government officials were also named in the suit: Wilbur
Cohen, Secretary of the United States Department of Health,
Education and Welfare; Harold Howe, commissioner of Education
of the United States and Marvin K. Petersen, Chairman of the
Commission on Aid to Higher Education of the state of Con-necticut.
The Complaint (Tilton v. Cohen) was filed in the
U.S. District Court in New Haven by fifteen taxpayers and
residents of the state of Connecticut. These individuals
essential for the future of the Catholic university." [The
text of the Land O'Lakes statement may be found in an article
by Neil McCluskey, S.J., "The Catholic University of Today."
America, August 12, 1967, pp. 154-156.1)
Following the arrival of the Complaint, Fairfield
University hastened to alter the most obvious sectarian por-tions
of its charter and the restricted nature of its gov-ernance
structure in order to improve its position in the
lawsuit. It did so with the competent assistance of consul-tant
Charles Horgan. 2 9
The lawsuit reached the U.S. District Court in Hart-ford
in 1970 and the U.S. Supreme Court in 1971. Fairfield,
along with the three other Connecticut colleges, was suc-cessful
in both courts. Its success was due in large measure
to the implementation of significant changes in its gover-nance
structure, beginning in 1968.
On December 20, 1968, Article I of the Corporation's
by-laws, which restricted membership in the Corporation to
Jesuits, was amended as follows: "The Corporation shall con-sist
of the Board of Trustees from time to time in office."30
Having done this, the'first two non-Jesuits were nominated
and elected to Fairfield University of Saint Robert Bellar-mine,
Incorporated. These individuals were Mr. James Joy,
Senior Vice President of City Trust Company in Bridgeport
and Mr. James Birkenstock, Vice President for Commercial
Development of the IBM Corporation.
29~ee William McInnesl "Memo to the File of the
Federal Law Suit.a October 2, 1968, McInnes Papers, FUA.
30~inutes of the Corporation, December 20, 1968.
Both Messrs. Joy and Birkenstock were members of a
lay' advisory board, created by William McInnes on February 1,
1965. This board was originally referred to as the "Board of
Trustees" and had its own by-laws. With the alteration of
the by-laws of the university's legal Corporation on Decem-ber
20, 1968, the name of the advisory group was changed to
the "Associate Board of Trustees" because the university's
legal Corporation assumed the title of "Board of Trustees".
Despite the change in its title, the advisory board retained
its original charge and function of enhancing the univer-sity's
development effort. The original formation of this
advisory board was significant inasmuch as it served as a
prelude to the corporate reorganization at Fairfield Univer-sity.
Four months after the alteration of Article I of the
by-laws, the Corporation's legal title was changed from
Fairfield University of Saint Robert Bellarmine, Incorpor-ated
to simply, Fairfield University, Incorporated. This
was accomplished through Connecticut Senate Bill 1319, passed
on April 30, 1969. Through this legislation, the following
provision of the 1945 charter was also eliminated:
. . . in the event of the dissolution of the cor-poration,
any remaining assets or surplus shall be
conveyed, transferred and delivered to the Society of
Jesus of New England, a religious and educational
corporation under the laws of the state of Massachu-setts;
if said Society of Jesus of New England shall
not be in existence, then said assets upon dissolu-tion
of the corporation, shall be conveyed, trans-ferred
and delivered to the bishop of the Roman
Catholic diocese of Hartford, Connecticut for the
uses and purposes of said diocese, or its succes-sors
and assigns thereafter, and if said Roman
Catholic diocese shall not then be in existence,
then said assets shall be conveyed, transferred
and delivered to the state of Connecticut.31
On September 8, 1969, the roles of rector and presi-dent
were separated. This significant event not only clearly
defined the limitations of both roles, but marked the formal
termination of the control exercised by church authorities
and Jesuit religious superiors over Fairfield Uni~ersity.~~
The destiny of the university was now primarily in the hands
of the president and the Board of Trustees.
On February 27, 1970, the Trustees of Fairfield
University, Incorporated was enlarged to include eight
Jesuits and ten laymen. The enlargement of the Board of
3 1 " ~ nA ct Incorporating Fairfield University of
Saint Robert Bellarmine, Incorporated", May 29, 1945.
3 2 ~ h eJ EA was dissolved in June 1970 and was re-placed
by three new voluntary associations: the Association
of Jesuit Colleges and Universities (AJCU), the Jesuit
Secondary Education Association (JSEA) and the Jesuit Con-ference
Committee on Formation (JCCF). Paul A. FitzGerald.
S.J., The Governance of Jesuit colleges in the United
States, 1920-1970, p. 220, assesses the dissolution of the
JEA in the following manner: "To all intents and purposes,
the presidents of ~esuit colleges and universities had
assumed complete control and direction of the apostolate of
higher education in the United States. It was the beginning
of a new era in the long history of Jesuit education." For
brief descriptions of the marked differences between the
defunct JEA, AJCU and JSEA, see: Project 1: The Jesuit
Apostolate of Education in the United States (Washington,
D.C.: The Jesuit Conference, April 1974), No. 2, p. 98 and
Joseph A. Tetlow, S.J., "The Jesuits1 Mission in Higher
Education: Perspectives and Contexts." Studies in the
Spirituality of Jesuits (St. Louis: The American Assistancy
Seminar, 1984).
Trustees was followed by a number of revisions in the Corpor-ation's
by-laws; most notable were these four:
The Board shall preserve and promote the educa-tional
objectives of the University within the con-text
of an institutional Jesuit and Catholic commit-ment.
The number of Trustees shall not be less than
seven (7) nor more than twenty-five (25), at least
one-third of whom shall be members of the Society
of Jesus. Trustees shall serve for a term of three
(3) years, or until their successors shall have
been elected and qualified. . . . no officer or
employee of Fairfield University shall be elected
a Trustee. The Rector of the Jesuit Community at
Fairfield, if he holds a faculty or administrative
position at the University, is hereby excluded
from membership on the Board.
That the President of the University shall be
a member of the Society of Jesus, in good stand-ing.
33
The final phase in the university's corporate re-organization
occurred shortly before Christmas in 1972. On
December 17, 1972, Mr. David Jewitt, Senior Vice President
of the Connecticut National Bank in Bridgeport, was elected
Chairman of the Board of Trustees. Mr. Jewitt, an Episco-palian,
held this position until 1978.
The five-year process by which corporate reorganiza-tion
occurred at Fairfield University was both smooth and
methodical, due mainly to William McInnes' skillful orches-tration.
Like many of its counterparts in American Jesuit
and Roman Catholic higher education, corporate reorqaniza-tion
at Fairfield had several major and positive effects:
1) it broadened the base of expertise necessary for the
33~inutes of the Corporation, February 11, 1972.
governance of a complex educational institution, 2) it
clearly delineated the role and power of the president and
the chairman of the board of trustees, 3) it improved the
university's ability to receive government funds and 4) it
gave concrete witness to the enlightened pronouncements of
the Second Vatican Council.
The corporate reorganization at Fairfield University
paralleled the enlargement and transformation of the univer-sity's
administrative staff. When William McInnes arrived
on the campus in 1964, the administrative staff was small,
composed primarily of Jesuits and highly centralized. It
was also largely controlled by religious superiors in Boston
or Rome. By the end of the decade, this pattern was com-pletely
reversed.
The first structural changes in the administration
occurred in 1966, when three new major positions were cre-ated:
the Academic Vice Presidency; the Vice Presidency of
Operations and the Vice Presidency of Planning. James M.
Coughlin, S.J., Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences,
was appointed Academic Vice President; Harry Huss, S.J.,
Treasurer of the Corporation was appointed Vice President of
Operations, and Dr. John A. Barone, Director of Research and
Grants and chemistry professor, was appointed Yice President
of Planning. The "Administrative Board" was also created
by William McInnes in 1966. It was designed to serve as the
president's advisory cabinet and was composed of key univer-sity
administrators.
By 1970, the administrative staff had nearly doubled.
By virtue of its size and specialization, the administrative
staff was divided into five separate, decentralized units:
Academics, under the direction of Academic Vice President
and Dean James H. Coughlin, S.J.; Student Services, under
the direction of Dean William P. Schimpf; Business and
Finance, under the direction of Vice President John M.
Hickson; University Relations, under the direction of Darrell
Ryan; and University Resources, under the direction of Vice
President John A. Barone. Barone was also appointed to the
position of Provost, which was created in 1970 to coordinate
the daily management of the university.
The enlargement and professionalization of the ad-ministrative
staff was occasioned by the tremendous growth
in the size, activities and budget of the university during
McInnes' tenure as president. When he arrived at Fairfield
in 1964, the annual budget of the university was $1.7 mil-lion;
the combined undergraduate/graduate enrollment was
2,094 and the physical plant was relatively small and con-fined.
By 1972, the annual budget had risen to $9.2 million;
enrollment had nearly doubled and the physical plant had
undergone an extraordinary expansion.
During the McInnes administration, undergraduate
women were admitted to the university, the Center for
Lifetime Learning offered its first courses for adults, the
first TV credit course was offered through public television,
and the two new academic units were established: the Graduate
School of Corporate and Political Communication and the
School of Nursing. Between 1964 and 1972, full-time and
part-time faculty increased from 101 to 140. The greatest
number of new faculty were appointed between 1965 and 1970.
By virtue of their advanced training at a wide variety of
American universities, these individuals added significantly
to the heterogeneity of the university.
Following the lead of the second Vatican Council,
faculty were engaged more fully, than during previous admin-istrations,
in academic policy-making, especially through
the Academic Council.34
This dramatic transition was occurring in other
American Jesuit and Catholic colleges as well. In an article
in the JEA's official publication, the Jesuit Educational
Quarterly, Charles F. Donovan, S.J. described this transi-tion
in a strikingly positive light:
We are in a new era of Jesuit higher education,
the era of lay-Jesuit partnership. In our personal
341n 1964, there were five Committees of the Faculty,
including the Academic Council. These were largely con-trolled
by Jesuit administrators, specifically, the Dean of
the College of Arts and Sciences. By 1972, several new com-mittees
were created with much broader representation, most
notably, the University Budget Committee which was "estab-lished
to review and make recommendations on the operational
costs of the University." Catalogue of the College of Arts
and Sciences, 1970-71, p. 11, FUA.
lives fellow Jesuits may have places of affection
and respect. But in our colleges and universities
Jesuits and lay faculty members are all equal
colleagues. . . . Perhaps the advent of laymen
with differing perspectives and a healthy skepti-cism
will help shake us out of routine thinking or
indeed out of the unthinking acceptance of what has
become routine. At any rate Jesuits and laymen
with similar concerns for Christian liberal learn-ing
or even for liberal learning with religious
perspectives should now unite to talk and argue and
enthuse and labor together trying to incarnate their
vision of liberal education. The first order of
business in Jesuit colleges is to encourage and
facilitate faculty communities. . . . So unique is
this opportunity and so basic is this need that I
would say there is neither future nor salvation
for Jesuit higher education except through the com-mitted,
generous, and imaginative cooperation of
Jesuit and lay faculty members in groups of be-lievers--
believers in liberal education, believers
in Christian education--who together form creative
and leavening faculty communities.35
A leavening community is exactly what William
McInnes attempted to create at Fairfield University. He did
so with a high degree of success by elevating the university's
self-image. Once a hidden, conservative and parochial in-stitution,
Fairfield was transformed into a regionally-known
and respected university because of the energized campus
environment McInnes created. Indeed, amongst admiring ad-ministrators
and faculty members at Fairfield, university
35~harles F. Donovan, S. J., "The Liberal Aims of
Jesuit Higher Education." The Jesuit Educational Quarterly,
Vol. 32, October 1969, pp. 87-88. (For another sample of
Donovan's progressive views on Jesuit-lay educational re-lationships,
see The Society of Jesus and Higher Education
in America 1N.Y.: Woodstock College, 1965, pp. 132-1353).
See also "Jesuit-Lay Relationships." in Proceedings:
JEA Denver Workshop on Jesuit Universities and Colleges:
Their Commitment in a World of Change, Denver, August 6-14,
JEA Collection.
history is divided into two periods: "P.M." (Pre-McInnes) and
"A.M. (After McInnes) .36
William McInnes left Fairfield on January 21, 1973
to assume the presidency of the University of San Francisco,
a Jesuit institution founded in 1855.~7 Three years after
he resigned the Fairfield presidency, McInnes returned to
the campus to receive an honorary Doctorate of Humane Let-ters.
The following was the citation for this degree:
For almost thirty years as a Jesuit and educator,
you have been schooled in that thrust of will char-acteristic
of Ignatian spirituality. The language of
the Spiritual Exercises which tasks you to effect a
dialectical humanism that mediates between heaven and
hell. With generosity and zeal you accept the chal-lenge
of the Kingdom and The Two Standards, a vision
that turns adversity into a blessing.
-- -
36~uring his term as president, William McInnes
served as a highly visible civic and social leader not only
in the immediate Bridgeport area, but throughout the state
of Connecticut. He served as chairman of the Higher Educa-tion
Center for Urban Studies of Bridgeport; the Commission
on Federal and State Relations of the Association of Jesuit
Colleges and Universities; the Committee on Alternate
Approaches for the Delivery of Higher Education of the Com-mission
for Higher Education for the state of Connecticut
and the Project Advisory Committee of the New Rural Socie-ties
Project, which operated under a H.U.D. federal grant
and in which Fairfield University served as prime contractor.
McInnes also served as president of the Connecticut Higher
Education Television Association and the Connecticut Asso-ciation
for Community Action, and first vice president of
United Cerebral Palsy Association of Fairfield County, Inc.
and chairman of Bridgeport's anti-poverty agency, Action for
Bridgeport Community Development, Inc. (ABCD).
37~nterestingly enough, during the final six months
of his presidency at Fairfield, (September 1972 to January
1973), McInnes was simultaneously the president of the
University of San Franciso.
Your background in the Army Air Force and your
professional studies have prepared you for the sol-dier's
stance. Your administrative leadership,
first at Boston College, then at Fairfield Univer-sity,
and presently at the University of San Fran-cisco,
combines the energy of faith with the forms
of practical reason. Convinced that the university
bears responsibility to the local community, you
extend the resources of the campus wherever they
are particularly needed. In this way you exemplify
the impetus of religion, which breaks down the bar-riers
that separate and divide people. Your cour-age,
then, enhances the gravamen of consciousness,
for to controversy it adds controversy.
Here at Fairfield, we are grateful for your
ministry and the poise of your attention. Heeding
the poet's injunction to 'be lowly wise', we con-gratulate
you today on your accomplishments.38
Immediately after William McInnes left Fairfield for
the University of San Francisco, Academic Vice President and
Dean James H. Coughlin, S.J. was appointed Acting President
by the Board, and briefly served in that capacity until a
new president was found. Because of his academic expertise
and intimate knowledge of the Fairfield University community,
Coughlin was the logical choice to serve as Acting President.
However, the appointment was not well-received by many fac-ulty
members and some top-level administrators because it
would only increase Coughlin's administrative power. The
discontent, though by no means widespread, was best expressed
by Philosophy professor King J. Dykeman in his letter to
David W. Jewitt, Chairman of the Board of Trustees:
You have created a Pooh-Bah. Look at a typical
instance that the habit of single appointment to
38~itation for the honorary Doctorate of Humane Let-ters
conferred upon William C. McInnes, S.J., May 25, 1975,
Office of the President.
multiple offices has caused. I have a complaint
about the way the Extended Year Program has become
a shield for bringing athletes to our university
who are not eligible through normal university
channels to become students at any college. The
first logical place for me to carry my complaint
is to the actual director of the program: Fr.
James Coughlin, S.J. If I do not receive satis-faction
I can take it to the general faculty,
whose chairman is appointed by the president of
the university: the chairman of the faculty is
Fr. James Coughlin, S.J. Since I seem blocked
here I can take the matter before the Dean of the
College, but here again the man is Fr. Coughlin,
S.J. I could go above the dean to the academic
vice-president, who is also Fr. Coughlin, S.J. or
to the acting president of the university who is
also Fr. Coughlin, S.J. or to the trustee I know
personally, who is also Fr. Coughlin, S.J. I am
not arguing with your choice of acting president,
but I am about the Gilbert and Sullivan adminis-tration
that you have created as a result of that
choice. I would like to recommend that you at
least appoint a temporary faculty chairman, and
a temporary dean of the college . . . P.S. My
name is being presented for promotion before the
Rank and Tenure Committee this spring: Fr.
Coughlin, S.J. is also the chairman ex-officio
and the single most influential member of that
committee, but I still think that the good of
the university demands this letter.39
Collegiality and Shared Governance
On February 10, 19.73, fifty-year-old Thomas R.
Fitzgerald, S . J. was selected to be the 'fifth president of
the university. Fitzgerald was the first president of the
university not selected by a Jesuit religious superior.
Instead, he was chosen after a nationwide search was con-ducted
by the university's Board of Trustees.
39~ing J. Dykeman to David W. Jewitt, 24 January
1973. (This letter is used with Dr. Dykeman's permission and
may be found in his personal files.)
A native of Washington, D.C., Fitzgerald entered the
Society of Jesus in 1939 after one year at Georgetown Univer-sity.
He earned his B.A. in 1945 and M.A. in 1948 from Wood-stock
College. Fitzgerald was ordained a priest in 1952 and
five years later received his Ph.D. in classical languages
from the University of Chicago. After serving as Dean of the
College of Arts and Sciences at Georgetown University from
1964-1966, he was appointed Academic Vice president. From
this Georgetown post, he moved to the presidency at Fairfield
University.
Fitzgerald was the first individual to be installed
as president of the university without the additional duties
of Rector of the Jesuit community. In his inaugural address
on September 21, 1973, Fitzgerald carefully described the
significance of this separation:
This process of untangling ecclesiastical
authority from academic authority has not always
been understood. Some feared that Catholic col-leges
were gradually being secularized; some have
judged that it was simply a tactic to qualify for
federal or state aid. One might recall, however,
that this process of disentanglement began years
prior to the major court challenges [Horace Mann
v. Board of Public Works and -Ti lnt-von .
I think that the disentanglement had to be achieved
if the colleges were to be genuine academic insti-tutions
with all that academic freedom implies. I
further believe that, if the disentanglement had
not been accomplished, individual trustees might
unwittingly have found themselves, at some point,
in serious legal jeopardy.
But in any case the college president no
longer wields the two-edged sword of secular and
of sacred power; he no longer has the same broad
control over the lives of students and faculty and
over curriculum, nor does the bishop nor the re-ligious
community exercise such control.
While the process of severing ecclesiastical author-ity
from academic authority largely occurred during the
McInnes administration, one final issue still remained un-resolved,
namely the separate incorporation of the Jesuit
community.41 This was accomplished on May 9, 1974 through
the signing of an agreement by Thomas R. Fitzgerald, S.J.,
representing the university and by Thomas A. McGrath, S.J.
secretary of "The Fairfield Jesuit Community Corporation",
a new legal entity created under the laws of the state of
Connecticut.42
The signing of this document was an attempt by both
corporations to clarify the manner in which the Jesuit char-acter
of the university could be both fostered and promoted.
To that end, the university agreed to 1) require its presi-dent
to be a Jesuit, 2) recruit and appoint competent Jesuits
and to compensate them with the same salaries and benefits
40~nauaural address of Thomas R. Fitzaerald. S. J..
fifth president of Fairf ield University, september 21, 1973,
FUA .
41~he movement toward separate incorporation of the
Jesuit community actually began in June 1969 at the direc-tive
of New England provincial William G. Guindon, S.J. For
a descriptive history of this process between 1969-1971, see
William C. McInnes, S.J. to William Guindon, S.J., 11 May
1971, McInnes Papers, FUA.
42"~greement of Release." May 9, 1974, Office of
the President.
as laymen, 3) to provide benefits to retired and retiring
Jesuits and 4) convey the title of 13.1 acres of land to
"Fairfield Jesuit Community Corporation".
The Fairfield Jesuit Community Corporation agreed to
1) supply Jesuit personnel to the university, 2) to retain
all Jesuits appointed by the university and 3) to offer an
annual contribution to the university from its surplus.
When separate incorporation was accomplished at Fair-field
University, seventeen other Jesuit colleges and univer-sities
in the United States had already taken the same route,
including St. Louis University (the pioneer), Boston College,
Georgetown University and Fordham University. Separate
incorporation at each of these institutions not only helped
to clarify the legal issue of ownership, it also provided the
Society of Jesus an opportunity for apostolic identity and
flexibility. Perhaps, more importantly, separate incorpora-tion
served as a Jesuit corporate witness to evangelical
poverty.
The movement toward separate incorporation in Ameri-can
Jesuit and Catholic colleges was largely influenced by
the research of Reverend John J. McGrath, a law professor at
the Catholic University of America. In 1968, McGrath pub-lished
a treatise on the delicate issue of legal ownership
of property in Catholic institutions, including colleges and
universities. His conclusion was startling:
Charitable and education institutions chartered
as corporations under American law are not -owned b y
the sponsoring body. The legal title to the real
and personal property is vested in the corporation.
It is the corporation that cares for the sick or
grants academic degrees. It is the corporation
that buys and sells and borrows money. If anyone
owns the assets of the charitable or educational
institution, it is the general public. Failure to
appreciate this fact has led to the mistaken idea
that the property of the institution is the prop-erty
of the sponsoring body. 43
McGrathls influential thesis was cited as a substan-tiating
authority for attorney Walter Gellhorn's analysis of
the Jesuit claim to ownership of Fordham Uni~ersity.~Th~e
following is Gellhorn's analysis of this issue:
The Jesuit 'owners'. The linkages between the
University and the Society of Jesus are a differ-ent
nature. For many years the Society asserted
flatly that it 'owned' Fordham. Acceptance of
this notion of ownership has been widespread. It
is reflected, indeed, in the 1967 by-laws of the
Board of Lay Trustees of Fordham University. . . .
These by-laws explicitly state that 'legal owner-ship'
of the University is vested in the Society
of Jesus and the legal control of the policy and
management of the University is exercised in
accordance with the prescriptions of the order
and Canon Law, through the Jesuit Board of Trus-tees.
. . .
With all respect, we believe that the avail-able
historical and legal materials do not sup-port
the claim of ownership, though unquestion-ably
the Jesuits do have a significant equitable
interest in Fordham's physical property and
institutional good will that should not be ex-punged
without the Society's acquiescence. . . .
43~ohn J. McGrath, Catholic Institutions in the
United States: Canonical and Civil Law Status (Washington,
D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 1968), p. 33.
44~alterG ellhorn and R. Kent Greenawalt, T-he
Secretarian College and the Public Purse: Fordham--A Case
Study (Dobbs Ferry, New York: Oceana Publication, 1970),
p. 63.
If for some unforeseeable reason Fordham were
now altogether to cease in existence and the cor-poration
created in 1846 were to dissolve, the
University's properties would not, in our opinion,
simply pass to the Society of Jesus as the 'real
owners', but would be conveyed, pursuant to the
judicial decree, to some other corporation empow-ered
to continue their educational use.45
In 1971, Miss Ruth Cessna, an attorney for the Jesuit
community at the University of San Francisco, examined the
McGrath study and rejected it in her fifteen-page paper:
"John J. McGrath: The Mask of Divestiture and Disaffiliation?"
The following is a summary of her position:
The ownership of Catholic institutions is
exactly where it has always been--in the Church.
The Roman Catholic Church is a hierarchical
structure consisting of many institutions which
are conducted through a system of sub-trusteeism
by its own body of laws. Its right to govern
the uses of its property is protected by the Con-stitution
of the United States.46
Cessna's document was sent to Father General Pedro
Arrupe, S.J. in Rome, who directed that it be examined and
judged by the presidents of the Jesuit colleges and universi-ties
and their respective attorneys.47 Upon examination,
45~bid., pp. 62-63.
46~uth Cessna, Esquire, "John J. McGrath: The Mask
of Divestiture and Disaffiliation?," 1971, p. 11. (This
document may be found in the Association of Jesuit Colleges
and Universities Collection in Washington, D.C. It will be
hereafter referred to as the AJCU Collection.)
47~exter, Hanley, S. J., "Analysis by University
Counsel of the Cessna ThesisTJanuary 8, 1972, p. 1, AJCU
Collection.
twenty-one Jesuit institutions determined the Cessna thesis
to be both "erroneous and misleading. II 4 8
In 1975, a thesis similar to Cessna's was advanced
by Reverend Adam Maida, a priest from the diocese of Pitts-burgh.
49 However, by the time his thesis entered the debate,
the McGrath position had already been widely accepted and
implemented. 50
The separate incorporation agreement between Fair-field
University and the Fairfield Jesuit Community Corpora-tion
was the first major accomplishment of the Fitzgerald
administration. Like many achievements to follow, the de-velopment
of this agreement was marked by its collegiality
and precision.
The collegial environment Fitzgerald attempted to
create was evident in the formation of a broad-based planning
commission in January 1973. This ad-hoc committee was formed
to develop a realistic appraisal of the university's
strengths and weaknesses, to examine several concrete pro-posals
and to offer projections of university needs. The
490wnership, Control and Sponsorship of Catholic
Institutions: A Practical Guide (Harrisburg: Pennsylvania
Catholic Conference, 1975).
50~or a brief legal analysis of the McGrath and
Maida theses, see James E. Coriden and Frederick R. McManus,
"The Present State of Roman Catholic Canon Law Regarding
Colleges and Sponsoring Religious Bodies" in Church and
Campus, by Philip R. Moots and Edward M. Gaffney, Jr.
(Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1979),
pp. 141-153.
report of this committee was released on January 15, 1975
and served as an academic road map for the growth and con-traction
of the university during the Fitzgerald presidency.51
Another document, released in June 1977, was designed to
serve a similar purpose, namely the Fairfield University
Institutional Self-study. This 116-page document was pre-pared
for the university's ten-year accreditation by the New
England Association of Schools and Colleges.
To introduce the self-study to the visiting commit-tee,
Thomas Fitzgerald spelled out the remarkable changes in
the university, especially in governance, since 1967:
The University.is not subject to external con-trol.
Its Board of Trustees, which is self-perpetuating,
has the autonomy normally enjoyed
by a college's governing body and holds title, in
public trust, to the institution's assets.52
The visiting committee took note of this development
and congratulated the university for breaking out of "its
rather narrow paternalistic state" and for conforming to a
"system of organization that follows more traditional lines
in American higher education."53
51"~r. Fitzgerald: Looking Ahead with a Backward
Glance." Fairfield News, January 1979, p. 4, FUA.
52~homas R. Fitzgerald, S.J. to the Visiting Com-mittee,
New England Association of Schoolsand Colleges,
1 September 1977, Office of the President.
53"~eport to the Faculty, Administration, Trustees,
Students of Fairfield University," March 28, 1978, p. 1 and
p. 14, Office of the President.
The corporate reorganization at Fairfield University
formed a part of the evolutionary changes in governance in
American Catholic education. This evolution was impressively
documented by Martin J. Stamm in his 1979 survey of American
Catholic colleges and universities, including Fairfield Uni-versity.
In his study, Stamm discovered a pervasive lay pres-ence
on Boards of Trustees at Catholic institutions and a
general satisfaction with their parti~ipation.~R~e flecting
on this phenomenon, Stamm maintains:
The legal separation of Catholic college and
university governing boards and corporations from
the organizational entities of the religious in-stitutes--
which was found in