Chronicles of Fairfield University (1942 - 1992). Book 2: An Era of Steady Growth and Change.

              CHRONICLES
[!/
FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY
BOOK Two:
By
- George B. Baehr, Ph.D.
Fairfield, Connecticut
1992
The six Chronicles of Fairfield University are being published in
conjunction with the observance of the 50th Anniversary of
the founding of Fairfield University and Fairfield College
Preparatory School.
The booklets are published under the auspices of the
Anniversaries Committee which includes:
Rev. Vincent M. Bums, S.]. Rev. John]. Higgins, S.].
Lawrence F. Carroll Stephen P. Jakab
Mrs. Patricia M. Danko (Sec.) WilliamJ. Lucas
George E. Diffley (Chair) Dr. Mary Frances A.H. Malone
Murray Farber Mrs. Clarissa Sinagulia
James D. Fitzpatrick Mrs. M~ry Spiegel
Rev. Victor F. Leeber, S.].
Alphonsus J. Mitchell (Chair)
Mrs. Elizabeth G. Hoagg
The History Subcommittee, which served as the editorial board,
includes:
Dr. William M. Abbott
Paul Davis
CHRONICLES
~
FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY
By George B. Baehr, Ph.D.
On]une 12, 1951, Fairfield University graduated its first class.
On the occasion of the first commencement, the University conferred 218
degrees, ofwhich 210 were bachelor degrees, four master of arts degrees
(in education), and four honoraty doctor of laws degrees. The latter were
given to the Most Rev. HentyJ. O'Brien, Bishop of Hartford, a benefactor
of the University; Most Rev. William R. Arnold, Titular Bishop of Phocaea,
Militaty Delegate ofthe Armed Forces ofthe United States; Most Rev. John
J. McEleney, S.]., Titular Bishop of Zeugmia and Vicar Apostolic of
Jamaica, B.W.I., the first president and rector of Fairfield College
Preparatoty School; and J. Howard McGrath, the attorney general of the
United Stat~s.
With the completion of its first commencement, Fairfield University
was successfully launched upon an era of academic stability and steady
growth ofits faculty, student bodyand physical plant. These achievements
were obtained in a time when the nation was beset with the "Korean
Police Action" of the Truman Era in the early 1950s and the ongoing Cold
War with the Soviet Union.
How Fairfield University grew in terms of academic status and
. national recognition during the 14 years between 1951 and 1964 that
mark the administrations of two University presidents and rectors of the
Jesuit community, Fathers Joseph D. Fitzgerald, S.]. and James E.
FitzGerald, S.]., will be the focus of this essay.
1
T~ UNIVERSI1Y'S CA1HOUC-JESUIT TRADITION
The objective ofthe Society ofJesus in founding Fairfield University's
College of Arts and Sciences in 1947 is clearly set forth in the "Status of
Fairfield University," adopted May 6, 1949, under the guiding hand of
FatherJames H. Dolan, S.]., president of the University and its Board of
Trustees. According to this document, the ".... objective and purpose of
the Jesuit college of liberal arts is the imparting of a liberal education to
its students." Critical to this end is the "training in the humanities,
philosophy and religion...," complemented by such disciplines as "the
social, physical and biological sciences," which seek to develop a
"liberally educated man."
Essential to the Jesuit system of undergraduate education is "...a
hierarchy of values. The humane and spiritual are more important than
material values; at the summit of the hierarchy are supernatural values,
those known through Revelation."
Continuing, the statement ofpurpose asserts that while college seeks
to train the individual in the intellectual virtues, " ... the Jesuit college,
as a Catholic college, regards as of paramount importance the moral and
religious growth of its students. To this end the Catholic tone of the
college will always be manifest so that our students may advance in
uprightness of life as well as in the liberal arts .... filled by Christ, it must
in its structure and the common life of its teachers and students be
thoroughly Catholic. "
ExPANSION INTO GRADUATE EDUCATION
Even before the University graduated its first class, the Catholic-jesuit
philosophy of higher education became a cause for establishing a
master's degree program in education, although it must be acknowledged
that the initial step in this direction arose from an invitation from the
Connecticut Department of Education in January 1949, urging Fairfield
University to petition for accreditation. Since the University had already
received a Charter from the Connecticut General Assembly in May 1945,
granting it unlimited governing and degree awarding authority, it was
unnecessary for the institution to be accredited by the State's Department
of Education.
2
However, since it offered a bachelor of social science degree with
a major in elementaty and secondaty education and since only those
colleges in Connecticut which -held Department of Education accredita­tion
were qualified as teacher-training institutions, the administration
thought it wise to accept the invitation. In the spring of1949, a five-man
examining team carried out its inspection and in May recommended to
the Connecticut Council on Higher Education's Standing Committee on
Accreditation that the University be recognized for the next five years,
until August 31, 1954, as a degree-granting institution. The State Board
of Education approved the recommendation June 6, 1949 and_with it
Fairfield University-became accredited and a member of the Connecticut
Council of Higher Education.
With this accreditation goal achieved, the University administration
sought permission from the Provincial 'of the New England Province of
the Society ofJesus, the Most Rev. John J. McEleney, S.]., to establish a
master of arts degree program in education. Among the reasons given by
Fr. W. Edmund Fitzgerald, dean of the University, was "the need and
repeated requests for courses to complete the education and formation
of teachers in the elementatyand secondaty" area schools, coupled with
the "grave danger that this field may be preempted by ... the influences
of the lay university of Bridgeport ...," complemented by a prior "lack
of Catholic educational influence on the secondaty and collegiate level
in this whole area."
Continuing, he asserted, "We now have a growing department of
education and teacher training program in the college." Instead of
weakening the university's efforts, "new courses will strengthen our
position by permitting a greater variety of courses in Education ...(and)
strengthening our staff' and by these means make Catholic educational
principles "be~er known in wider circles among those already practicing
as teachers."
As to long range benefits that might be obtained, Father Fitzgerald
argued.that it would allow the University "to establish early the normal'
lines of growth to the graduate level in a department in which there is,
perhaps, the greatest need of Catholic influence." For in the school's
Education Department, the Dean asserted, we possess the "best capacity
for qoing creditable work without dispersion of our efforts over
specialized fields in which we are not prepared." Concluding his letter
3
Rev. Joseph D. FitzGerald, S]., (left), seroed as President/rom 1951
to 1958 and was succeeded by Rev. James E. FitzGerald, S]., who
then seroed until 1964.
of Oct. 19, 1949, to the Provincial, Father Fitzgerald requested early
approval of this matter so that the University might inaugurate graduate
education courses with the start of the spring semester in February 1950.
The request was referred to Father GeneralJohn B. Janssens, S.]., in
Rome for approval. He turned the matter over to his American Assistant,
Fr. Vincent A. McCormick, S.]., for clarification and ultimate resolution.
Fr. McCormick, in a letter dated Nov. 11, 1949 to Fr. James H. Dolan S.].,
then president of Fairfield University, raised two questions. First, would
the expansion of the University's education course offerings mean the
embarking upon coeducational classes? Second, "Have you in mind to
establish a School of Education?" Fr. McCormick's primary concern
centered on the second question, because he was painfully aware that
an unnamed American Jesuit institution had established a School of
Education for much the same reasons as were now being advanced by
Fairfield. The problem was that the unnamed Jesuit institution was now
"practically staffed by professors of the Dewey school" and the library
filled with works advocating "the false philosophy of that school. They
admit now, that it were better not to have begun until they were sure of
a thoroughly trained Catholic staff with plenty of Jesuits on it."
4
Responding to the questions Fr. McCormick raised, Dean Fitzgerald
declared that the administration saw no need, nor did the University have
the capacity to establish a full-time graduate school in the foreseeable
future. Whatwas being proposed was the development of"our Education
Department to the terminal level of the M.A., as it develops."
As to the question of coeducational classes, the dean replied that the
inaugurating of extension courses would not mean the introduction of
coeducation at the undergraduate level in the College of Arts and
Sciences, because these extension courses would be taught on Saturdays
and late afternoons. Thus they would be "separate in nature and intent
from the undergraduate college courses. Academically, they have to be
recorded differently as Extension Courses."
Fr. Dolan, the president, replied to Fr. McCormick's questions by
emphasizing the competitive situation Fairfield University faced with a
rapidly expanding neighbor, the University of Bridgeport. Stressing that
he was totally unsympathetic "with the overnight expansion" of many
secular institutions, in particular the "University of Bridgeport, that was
chartered as a University in 1947" and which had expanded its enrollment
"from much less than 1,000 to ... more than 3,000 (including a great many
Catholics)."
The scenarios portrayed by Frs. Fitzgerald and Dolan were enough
to convince Father-General Janssens to grant permission for Fairfield
University to undertake on an extension basis a program of graduate
education courses. However, the approval was restricted by a prohibi­tion,
'namely that the "... introduction of the Extension courses is not to
mean that there will be coeducation at Fairfield University." With the start
of the spring semester, on Feb. 6, 1950, under the supervision of the
College of Arts and Sciences Department of Education, graduate courses
in educatipn were offered together with a program of graduate courses
leading to the awarding of a master of arts degree in education. OnJune
25, 1950, Fr. Fitzgerald informed Fr. Dolan, that the State Board of
Educati,on had given"...approval ofour graduate program in Education."
5
CHANGE IN LEADERSHIP
Approximately four months after he had seen the "pioneer class"
through four years of study and its graduation in June 1951, Fr. James H.
Dolan, S.]., having completed the normal six-year term as president, was
succeeded by a new chief executive. On Oct. 18, 1951 Fr. Joseph D.
FitzGerald began his tenure as president of Fairfield University and rector
of the Jesuit community. When he arrived on campus, Fr. FitzGerald
brought impressive credentials. Ordained a priest for the Society ofJesus
in 1931, he spent six years teaching at Boston College. In 1937, he was
appointed assistant dean there. Two years later, he was transferred to the
College of Holy Cross, in Worcester Mass., where he served as dean for
nearly ten years, a difficult time of adjustments and accelerated studies
due to the conditions created by World WarII and the demands stemming
from the post-war years of rapid expansion. In July 1948, Fr. FitzGerald
was appointed director of the Jesuit Educational Association for the
colleges of the New England Province.
Arriving on campus in mid-October 1951, he found that under Father
Dolan the young University and the graduates of the "pioneer graduating
class" had established an outstanding record. In addition to the successes
the University attained during its initial four years under Fr. Dolan's
leadership, graduates of the Class of 1951 had achieved an impressive
record in gaining admission to professional and graduate schools. Out of
a class of 212 graduates some 49 continued their studies as graduate
students in September 1951,19 entering law schools, 12 medical schools,
8 dental schools, another 10 doing graduate work in the humanities and
social sciences. Fifty-one entered the Armed Forces to serve the nation
during the "Korean Police Action" in 1951. Along with these successes,
Fr. FitzGerald found the fledgling university was faced with major
immediate and long-range problems.
MAJOR PROBLEMS
The immediate problem was a significant decline in the number of
undergraduate students when the university began classes in September
1951. During the academic year 1950-51, some 775 undergraduate
students were enrolled in courses. In the following academic year 1951­52,
the total number of students matriculating fell to 641. This trend
6
continued through 1953-54, when the undergraduate enrollment fell to
its lowest level of 588 students.
The causes for the decline can be attributed to at least three factors.
Chief among these was the decline in the country's birthrate during the
Depression years of the early and mid 1930s. As a result, the number of
young men graduating from the nation's high schools declined substan­tially.
Hence by 1951, the available number of eligible students seeking
admission to college diminished con'siderably. With the start of Fairfield
University'~ fifth academic year in September 1951, the number of
entering freshmen, the Class of 1955, had fallen to 152 students. This was
but half of the 303 freshmen that composed the Pioneer Class of 1951,
more than 40 percent of whom were veterans of World War II.
Paralleling this development was the fact that by 1951 a substantial
majority of World War 'II veterans seeking a college education under
provisions of ,the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, popularly
known as the "GI Bill of Rights," had already completed their college
education. Furthermore, the "Korean Police Action" of 1950-1953
reduced the number of high school graduates entering the country's
colleges, since significant numbers ofthem were either drafted orenlisted
in the Armed Forces.
Fortunately, the growth of the graduate program of education
courses begun in the spring semester of1950, following the awarding of
State accreditation, proved a means ofbalancing the loss ofundergraduate
students. From only 37 students enrolled in Graduate Education courses
in the spring semester 1950, the number of such students rose to 122 in
the spring of 1951, to 240 the' following spring and 258 in the spring
semester of 1953. Thus, the combined undergraduate and graduate
students rnatriculating, which numbered 897 in the spring semester of
1951, remained fairly ~table, declining to only 881 in the spring of 1952,
and 858 in the spring semester of 1953. The decline in the combined
graduates and undergraduates attending Fairfield University reached its
lowest -point of 797 i!1 the spring of 1954, with 558 students enrolled as
undergraduates and 239~ as graduat~s. By the spring of 1955, the
University experienced a dramatic turnaround, with the total number of
students matriculating rising to 955, of whom 634 were undergraduates
and 291 were enrolled in graduate education courses.
7
When Fr. FitzGerald began his presidency, Fairfield University had
not progressed beyond its commuter college status. Both Fr. Dolan and
his successor Fr. FitzGerald visualized the University as a residential
college where its students would live a common life of scholarly studies
of the humanities and sciences while obtaining a deeper understanding
of traditional Christian theological teachings and a Catholic spiritual life.
With these goals foremost in their thinking, both presidents sought to
bring nearer the day when a program for building residential halls could
be undertaken.
Shortly after Fr. Dolan returned to Fairfield in October 1950,
following a brief tenure as vice provincial of the New England Province
of the Society ofJesus, to resume his duties as president of the University,
he announced that the $1,200,000 debt, incurred by the Society in
establishing Fairfield Prep and the University, had been reduced to
$250,000. Speaking to members of the Bellarmine Club shortly after his
return, declining to accept credit for this achievement, Fr. Dolan asserted
"The credit belongs first to God, the faculty and students and to the men
and women in the Fathers Club and Guild, who had aided with
their fund raising activities." Before his successor Fr. FitzGerald had
completed his initial year as the University's president, the remaining debt
had been paid off.
PIANT EXPANSION 1954-1957
As the fall semester 1953 got underway Fr. FitzGerald secured the Board
of Trustees approval to initiate the drafting of plans for the construction
of the first residential hall. In April 1954, the president in press releases
to the local newspapers, announced that plans for the construction of
Fairfield University's first college dormitory had been completed by
F. Gerald Phelan, architect for the engineering firm of Fletcher­Thompson,
Inc. of Bridgeport. In addition, a contract had been signed
with the E& F Construction Company, for the building of a residence hall
which would house some 210 students. On July 14, ground-breaking
ceremonies were held and construction of the new $1,150,000 dormitory
began. Construction of the new facility, which included a student chapel,
dining hall and an infirmary, was completed in August 1955 and in
September students began living on campus in the new Loyola Hall.
8
With the University experiencing a substantial increase in under­graduate
enrollment as the fall semester 1955 commenced, the Board of
Trustees authorized Fr. Fitzgerald to ask Fletcher-Thompson to draft
plans for a three-building complex.
At the start of Commencement week, June 1956, the president
disclosed the University's plan to begin immediate construction of the
three-building complex. The plan called for a second residence hall,
adjacent to Loyola Hall, completed but nine months earlier. In addition,
the plan envisioned a new classroom-library building that would fonn
part of a future quadrangle of instructional facilities. Nearby, to the east
ofthese buildings, in the wooded valley between the original and the new
buildings on campus, the plan called for construction ofa University gym,
with a seating capacity in excess of 2,000. The complex, it was estimated,
would cost more than $2,500,000. Concluding his public statement, Fr.
FitzGerald asserted: "Assuming nonnal growth for the University and the
sharp rise in current enrollment," coupled with a projected growth in the
number of college students nationwide over the next 15 years, the
administration had to recognize the "urgency for immediate action in
building expansion."
As a part of Class Day exercises of Commencement Week, ground­breaking
ceremonies for both the classroom-library and residence halls
were held the next day so that construction of the two buildings would
begin immediately and be completed to receive students and classes at
the sta'rt of the fall semester, in September 1957.
The new donnitory was built to house some 210 young men, with
a large student lounge, offices on the ground floor for their activities, and
an auditorium seating 600. Placed a short distance south ofthe donnitory,
the new L-shaped classroom-library facility was built to house on its
ground floor a library with a capacity for 75,000 volumes and seating for
over 200 patrons. Above, on the upper three floors, space for some 23
classrooms and a large lecture room with seating for 120 people was
planned. On the upper floors of the short wing of the L-shaped building,
office space was built to accommodate faculty members and adminis­trative
personnel, while on the ground floor of this wing, work space for
the library staff was planned., Construction of the gym was deferred until
the completion of the residence and classroom-library halls.
9
By late August 1957, construction of the new residence hall and
classroom-library building was complete and they were named after two
distinguished Jesuits of the 16th Century. The dormitory bore the name
of St. Aloysius Gonzaga, "patron saint of youth," while the second hall
was named after St. Peter Canisius, a Jesuit theologian, Doctor of the
Church, called by Pope Leo XIII, the "Second Apostle of Germany after
Boniface."
With the start of the fall. semester of 1957, over 400 of the 924
undergraduates matriculating at Fairfield resided on campus and partici­pated
in a higher education community founded on a liberal arts tradition
of learning integrated into a system of traditional Catholic teachings and
moral values. As the administration strove to bring nearer the day when
most of its young male undergraduate scholars would be campus
residents, the composition and role of the university's lay faculty
members in determining policy with respect to such matters as curriculum,
staffing of departments, scholastic standards as well as governance
emerged with increasing frequency.
THE CHANGING COMPOSITION AND ROLE OF mE FACUL1Y
In mid-Feb~ary 1955, an accrediting team appointed by the
Connecticut Council on Higher Education conducted a broad~based
inspection of academic activity and life in the University. Although the
committee lauded the institution's administration for its strong commit­ment
and "deep interest in the welfare of the students," it criticized the
university's ", , . administrative organization for its concentration of
authority in a few individuals."
In their report, they pointed to the fact that the Board ofTrustees was
composed of "seven members, five of whom (were) members of the
administration and the other two members of the teaching staff."
Continuing in the same vein, they observed that the Academic Council
consisted of "three administrative officers and the coordinators ofthe four
divisions." Thus, there existed a marked "... degree of overlapping
between membership of the Board of Trustees, administrative officers,
and the faculty committee." Observi~g that, "It has been found to be
sound educational practice to separate these three types offunctions," the
committee report emphasized that the typical structure of governance in
10
American ~igher education was a Board of Trustees consisting of
members "drawn from a range of occupations ..." and hence "a
governing body to which the administrative officers are responsible.
When the Board ofTrusteesand the administrative officers are essentially
the same individuals, the administrative officers.become responsible to
themselves."
The evaluating committee then recommended strongly that· while
"specific definition of powers and responsibilities of a Board consisting
of members not connected with the staff of the institution, including lay
members, .. (ought) to reflect the organization of the Jesuit institutions,
. . serious consideration should be given to the establishment of such a
Board."
In addition, they advocated that the administration expand the lay
faculty's role in detennining policy, "including such problems as curricu­lum,
scholastic standards. and policies affecting the staff itself." The
evaluating committee then recommended to the Connecticut Council on
Higher Education continuance of Fairfield University's accreditation,
which was granted.
These proposed changes must be seen against the expansion and
changing composition of the University's faculty. When classes began in
September 1947, the faculty ~as composed of 13 instructors, nine]esuits,
eightof them priests of the Society ofJesus, together with four laymen.
From this small beginning, the faculty grew, by the time the pioneer class
graduated in]une 1951, to a total of 38 members, including 21]esuits and
17 lay instructors. By the time the 1955 Evaluating Committee submitted
its report, the number of faculty had expanded minimally. There were
now 43, including 20 Jesuit priests and 23 laymen.
When Fr" Joseph D. FitzGerald completed his tenure as President
and Fr. ]amesE. FitzGerald assumed the duties of this office on May
1,1958, the University's faculty had grown to some 52 members - 23
]esuitsand 29 laymen.
During the same span of time, 1947-1958, the number of adminis­trative
officers grew from two in 1947, Fr.]ames H. Dolan, president, and
Fr. Laurence C." Langguth, dean of freshmen, to nine by 1958. Then led
by Fr. Joseph D. FitzGerald, president, the administrative staff included
Fr. George McCabe, S.]., executive assistant to the president; Fr. William
]. Healy, S.]., dean; Fr. George S. Mahan, S.]., assistant dean; Fr. Thomas
11
F. Lyons, S.J., dean of students and director of athletics; Father Joseph
McCormick, SJ., dean of resident students; Fr. Harry L. Huss. SJ.,
treasurer; and Fr. Francis A. Small, S.J., librarian. The only lay member of
Fr. FitzGerald's administration was Robert F. Pitt, registrar.
Thus three years after the 1955 Evaluating Committee's Report
urging that lay faculty members be admitted to greater involvement in
determining policy, all but one ofthe university's administrative positions
remained staffed by Jesuits.
With, respect to its Board of Trustees, only two of the seven-man
board were, by 1958, officers or faculty members from other Jesuit
institutions. The remaining five were the president and four administrators
of Fairfield University. Hence, it could be asserted. the University
administration was still answerable to itself; the membership ofthe Board
was drawn from a narrow "range of occupations," and did not involve
prominent and successful businessmen, including Catholic laymen, an
increasing number ofwhom were graduates of Catholic institutions and
could very well be helpful in providing the financial means necessary for
the expansion of Fairfield University's academic efforts. With respect to
chairmanships of the university's 13 academic departments, all but two,
namely Accounting-Business and Biology, remained headed by religious
faculty members as late as 1964.
That there was recognition of the need to bring lay faculty members
into policymaking roles and decisions at Jesuit colleges and universities
became evident at the convocation of Jesuit university and college
presidents in June 1960 at Boston College.
Dean William Van Etten Casey, S.]., of Boston College, addressing
the convocation, asserted; "We have delegated to our faculty the
responsibility of educating our students ...(yet we fail to delegate) to
them any of the necessary and corresponding educational authority...
We tell our faculty, you are fully responsible for educating these students
but you have no authority or power to make any changes that you
consider essential for carrying out your responsibility." Continuing, he
declared, "This policy tends to make our faculty a flock of sheep,
frequently reluctant, sometimes bitter." In time, "their interest wanes" and
there is a total lack of "passionate commitment because there is no feeling
of deep involvement."
12
Addressing this major dilemma, he posed two questions: "Are we to
continue our present methods, living on in our ~ducational ghetto,
segregated·from the mainstream of American higher education? Or, by
modifying our procedures, are we going to bring o'!r faculty into a deeper
involvement anq therefore into a .~ore'enthusiastic commitment by
delegating to them the educational authority that necessarily belongs to
their educational.responsibility?" For Father Casey, this was "the crucial
issue for the American Catholic and Jesuit higher education."
Focusingonthis problem,]ohn D. Donovan, a layman and sociology
professor at Boston College, undertook an extensive study onthe role of
"the Catholic religious and lay professors in American Catholic coeduca­tional
and men's colleges and universities." Among the conclusions
reached by Professor Donovan was the finding that "professional
disenfranchisement" had fostered "during the past few years (on)
numerous Catholic college campuses"· either the revival of dormant
American Association of University Professors chapters or the establish­ment
of new chapters. For most priest-professors this development held
little appeal·due to "the potential conflict situation in which membership
might place them vis-a-vis their religious superiors," yet it "symbolized the
lay professor's need for a professionally oriented, rather than a religiously
oriented authority base for work policies and practices."
A sense. of faculty disenfranchisement and the organizing of an
American Association of University Professors chapter by the lay faculty((
. of Fairfield University in 1956 had occurred nearly a decade prior to the
publication of Professor Donovan's study, The Academic Man in the
Catholic College. Initially, Dr. John A. Barone, a chemistry professor on
the University's faculty and a layman, broached the subject of organizing
a chapter of the AAUP on campus with the dean, Fr. William Healy, and
secured the latter's assurances. "that there would be 'no objection."
Dr. Barone then obtained the support of a significant number of the
lay faculty and he was elected president of the newly formed AAUP
~hapter. In his letter of Nov. 24,1956, he officially informed the president,
Fr. FitzGerald, of the establishment of the AAUP chapter, composed of
only lay members of the university's faculty, and sought his approval. In
the same letter he indicated that members of the Society ofJesus were
welcome to join "... as long as they teach halftime 'or more (and pay their
dues)." With the drafting of its constitution in February 1957, the Fairfield
13
University chapter of the American Association of University Professors
was officially established. Over the next two years, this organization
conducted discussions with the University administration that resulted by
1959 in an agreement establishing a rank and tenure structure, proce­dures
for the granting of promotion, and salary schedules.
By the time he had completed a near seven-year tenure as president
of Fairfield University on May 1, 1958, Fr. Joseph D. FitzGerald could be
justly proud of his achievements. During his tenure, in December 1953,
Fairfield University was accepted as a fully accredited member of the
prestigious NewEngland Association ofColleges and Secondary Schools.
InJanuary 1954, the University obtained accreditation by the Association
of American Colleges, and in the following month, it was voted institu­tional
membership in the American Council of Education. Beyond
directing the completion of three new buildings, two residence halls,
Loyola and Gonzaga, together with Canisius Hall, a classroom-library
edifice, the departing president had to be pleased that under his
leadership a new campus had been erected in the middle of more than
200 acres of University grounds. In addition, he had led the University
through the difficult days of declining undergraduate enrollment during
the early 1950s and he could take pleasure in the fact that the University's
matriculating students had grown to some 1,416, including 924 under­graduates
and 492 graduate students in education.
I
To Fr. James E. FitzGerald he left the challenge of building the
planned gymnasium, future residential halls, a student campus center,
and a new science building. All of these were part of a plan for housing
a substantially expanded undergraduate student body engaged in the
study of the humanities, sciences and social sciences in a Catholic
Christian community and environment.
STIJDENT A01VITIES AND ACHIEVE!v1ENTS
One cannot convey an accurate picture of the successful growth of
Fairfield University in the period 1950-1964 without describing the varied
non-athletic student activities. (The development of the university's
varsity sports program in basketball, baseball, track, etc. and intramural
sports activities, such as schoolboy football, rugby, etc.·will be recorded
elsewhere.) By 1964, there were over 25 student clubs and societies
14
affording out-of-classopportunities for the individual student's develop­ment,
pleasure and fulfillment, while publicizing the achievements of the
university. There is not enough space to discuss and do justice to the
activities ofall these groups and the young menwho participated in then1.
One can divide the clubs and societies into four categories: those related
to major courses of study, Le., the Aquinas Academy, promoting interest
in Philosophy, the Business Club, the Chemistry Club, the Education
Club, four Modem Language Clubs, as well as the Marketing, Math­Physics
and Sociology Clubs.
Paralleling these organizations were seven university public affairs
groups that brought Fairfield University and a representative cross­section
of its student body to the area's public attention as well as to other
contemporary college students. Among these were the student newspa­per,
The Stag, organized by Frank Malyszka, editor-in-chief, ably sup­ported
by a number of his colleagues, many ofwhom were graduates of
the pioneer class of 1951. Complementing The Stag were such groups as
the Bellarmine Debating Society and the well received and outstanding
"Ambassadors of Song," the Fairfield University Glee Club under the
direction of Simon Harak during and for some years after the time span
"The Ambassadors ofSong, ,. the Fairfield [lni[!ersi~v Glee Club
directed by Simon Harak, helped put the school on the map.
15
ofthis essay. Included among the public affairs groups were the Dramatic
Society, which produced a number of annual stage productions; the
Radio Club, whose members under the direction of Professor John
Meaney, presented a weekly radio program of commentary on current
affairs; and the Public Affairs Club, directed by Fr. Gabriel Ryan, whose
members organized public forums in which major issues, especially
economic and political developments of the times were discussed from
a Christian point of view. Last, but by no means least in importance, was
the Fairfield University chapter of the Connecticut Interscholastic Student
Legislature, whose members played a major role in the annual College
Student Legislature's session held each March in the General Assembly's
Hall of the House at the State Capital.
A third type of student activity was the nine regional clubs. The
earliest one was the Waterbury Club, organized in 1949, followed by the
Metropolitan Club established shortly thereafter by students from New
York City and surrounding suburbs. In 1950, four more were organized,
namely the Hartford, the New Haven, .the Valley and the Triangle Clubs;
the Valley Club was set up by students from the towns and cities of the
Housatonic and Naugatuck Valleys, while the Triangle Club was started
by those coming from the shoreline communities from Fairfield on the
east, westward to Greenwich and north to Danbury. In the early 1950s,
the Bridgeport Club, along with the Bay State and New]ersey Clubs, were
organized by students. The growth ofthe regional clubs gives an accurate
picture ofthe expanding number ofundergraduate students coming from
an ever widening geographical area. A major motive prompting students
to fonn the regional clubs was the organizing of social affairs, such as
fonnal dances and picnics. They also promoted concerts by the Fairfield
University Glee Club in their home regions. Profits from such affairs were
used to endow scholarships in support ofsending a qualified new student
each year from each respective region to the University. The clubs also
served as a means of building regional chapters of a growing Fairfield
University Alumni Association.
The fourth significant type of .organized extracurricular student
activity on campus was the Sodality of Our Lady of Fairfield. Under the
leadership of Fr. Edmund]. Hogan, S.]., the first director, the Sodality was
established in May 1948. Its primary goal was to promote and spread
among the university's students "devotion to Mary" as a means of
16
developing "devotion to Christ." The Sodality members were organized
into five groups: "Our Lady's Committee to lead the devotion of the
Rosary;" "the Catholic Truth section to implant an interest in Catholic
Literature;" "the Mission Crusaders, to spread knowledge of and gain
support for . . ." Catholic missionary efforts; a "Liturgical Committee
(promoting the) study of the Mass and the liturgy of the Church;" and "the
Sacred Healt Committee to propagate the First Friday devotions and the
Apostleship of Prayer." Complementing this vibrant religious action
group, the Canisius Acaqemy was organized in 1958 with the mission to
study theological problems.
One of the most successful extracurricular student activities was the
College Bowl team organized through the efforts of Fr. Donald Lynch, S.].
After staging a preliminary written examination, open to any university
student who desired to take it, the most outstanding candidates were
selected. Three seniors, John Kappenburg, a premed major and captain
of the team, together with]ohn Horvath, a modem language major, and
George Greller, a Spanish major, and junior Joseph Knoll, an. English
major, were chosen as the Fairfield University College Bowl team to
represent the University on nationwide television. Through the efforts of 7
the late FatherThomas Burke, S.]., an invitation to participate was secured
from Robert Earle, moderator of the General Electric College Bowl
program.
In their first appearance they met and defeated a team from
Creighton University on the last Sunday of September 1963. On the next
Sunday they met and were victorious over a team from Southern Illinois
University and on the following Sunday they beat a team from Clemson
University. Returning to campus after their third victorious weekend in
New York, the members of the team were greeted as conquering heroes
by a crowd of several hundred students shortly before midnight Sunday.
At a luncheon sponsored by the Bridgeport Chamber of Commerce
the next day, General Electric officials presented the University president,
Father ]~mes E. FitzGerald, with a check for $3,000, the amount won by
the team. Ofgreater import, the success ofthe Fairfield University College
Bowl team gave the institution national exposure and recognition.
Ina report titled "Fairfield University-A Profile," dated Aug. 19, 1963,
the University's administration asserted it was "particularly proud of its
alumni who (occupy) positions of leadership as teachers, doctors,
17
dentists, lawyers, accountants, social workers, members of industry, the
clergy and business." The paper took special note of a United States
Department of Health and Welfare Report which set forth the fact that:
"Among 100 undergraduate colleges having the highest proportion of
alumni receiving medical degrees" during the period 1950-1959, Fairfield
University attained". .. a substantial 10.1 % as against an average rate of
4.90/0."
FR. JAMES E. FITZGERAID'S PRESIDENCY, 1958-1964
When Fr. James E. FitzGerald assumed his duties as the fourth
president ofFairfield University in May 1958, the nation was experiencing
what was called by some "the Eisenhower Recession;" others labeled it
"the Eisenhower Depression" depending upon whether they were
employed or unemployed. .Despite the downturn in the national
economy, Fr. FitzGerald began construction of the planned gymnasium
within a month ofhis arrival on campus. Costing approximately $1 million
dollars, the gym was of a Quonset design. Eleven parabolic arches, made
of reinforced concrete, supported the roof which reached a height of 40
feet. As constructed, it allowed an unobstructed. view of some 35,000
square feet of floor area which could be divided into two large sections,
permitting the Prep and University to stage athletic events simultaneously
without concern for having conflicting schedules. The uniqueness of the
design prompted two visits by Yale University architectural classes.
Father FitzGerald had hoped to have the structure finished by Christmas.
However, it was not completed until June 1959, in time for the
commencement of the class of that year.
When the Class of 1965 entered in September 1961, the prospects for
plant expansion and the growth of the student body, studying under a
traditional Jesuit curriculum founded on a broad base of Thomistic
oriented philosophy courses complemented by 16 hours of courses in
Catholic theology, appeared very promising. Yet changes were in the
offing.
In the Autumn of· 1961, the University's administration signed a
contract for the construction of a third residence hall financed in part by
a Federal loan of $950,000. However, the building had to be constructed
without the traditional chapel and religious symbols, due to a long held
18
interpretation of the First Amendment in the Federal Constitution
upholding the principle of Separation of Church and State re~arding the
funding of educational efforts by private and sectarian institutions. When
completed in time for the academic year 1962-63, the new building was
named Campion Hall in honor of the late 16th Century English Jesuit
martyr Blessed Edmund Campion. The residence hall provided housing
for an additional 200 young men, bringing the total of undergraduates
living on campus to over 600.
As construction of the new dormitory was undertaken, Father
FitzGerald announced a "New Horizons Program" for developing both
the academic life and curriculum and the physical plant of the University
during the decade of the 1960s. As planned jointly by University officials
and the consulting firm of Robert H. Devlin of Bronxville, N.i{., the long-
Afreshman chemistry class in the lab at Xavier Hall in the 1960s.
19
range plan envisioned raising funds for improved faculty salaries, a
scholarship and loan fund for students and research grants in the physical
sciences.
Paralleling these goals, the program called for the construction of a
fourth residence hall, a student center, a science building and a new
library, as well as faculty housing. The total estimated cost was $11.5
million, according to a detailed brochure entitled "Fairfield University ­AProfile"
issued in mid-October 1963, by the Office of Development that
the university had established the previous January under Director
Stanley G: Robertson.
Reflection by Fr. FitzGerald and members of the university admin­istration
on the magnitude and expense of the "New Horizons Program"
had to have given all involved serious concerns. As a result. the University
hired a new consulting firm, Taylor, Lieberfeld and Heldman, to
undertake a more comprehensive study, thus ending further construction
for the remainder of Fr. FitzGerald's presidency.
The early 1960s proved for many Catholics an era of momentous
change. For a significant number, especially for many young adults, the
election ofa Catholic,John Fitzgerald Kennedy, as President ofthe United
States in November 1960, was a welcome occasion. It appeared to end
most opposition to the election of a Catholic to the American presidency.
Kennedy's assassination on Nov. 22, 1963, little more than a thousand
days after his inauguration, was for a substantial majority of Americans
a devastating tragedy.
Coupled with the United States involvement in the undeclared
Vietnamese War during the 1960s, these two events produced an era of
cynicism and disillusion, shattering idealism and promoting an advance
in the spirit of secularism as well as a mounting preoccupation with
hedonism.
Early in the same decade, the Roman Catholic Church under the
leadership of the elderly PopeJohn XXIII, sought to bring about internal
reforms and a renewal of the Catholic Church in its Christ-given mission:
"Go forth and teach all men, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that
I have commanded you." This renewed missionary effort sought to open
the ecclesiastical door and let in a breath of fresh air by emphasiZing the
individualCatholic's responSibility for developing a deeper understanding
20
of Christ's teachings, coupled with a personal spiritual renewal and
greater individual moral responsibility for affirmatively influencing the
society in which one lived.
As the Ecumenical Council was discussing how these goals were to
be attained, Fairfield University's theology department undertook a study
of its course offerings that were a mandated part of the university's core
curriculum. By spring 1964, the department had developed a proposal
to reduce the number of required theology courses.
In place of the eight courses, with two credit hours each per
semester, or a total of 16 credit hours over four years, the new theology
program would consist of four core curriculum courses, each of three
credit hours, or a total of 12 credit hours. This change was to be
implemented over a three-year period. Shortly thereafter, the place of
philosophy courses as a requirement in the core curriculum was also
subjected to intensive study. As a result, by tq~ academic year 1967-1968,
a substantial change was inaugurated. In that year, an undergraduate
Fairfield student had to take six philosophy courses of three credit hours
each or a total of 18 credit hours. But four years earlier, in academic 1963­1964,
a graduating senior would have had to meet philosophy course
requirements totaling eight courses, of three credit hours each, or a total
of 24 credit hours.
The major reason? advanced to justify the reduction in theology and
philosophy credit hours in the core curriculum from 48 to 30 hours were
several. Among the major ones was the assertion that the change would
give juniors and seniors the opportunity "to devote more time to their
major field." In addition, a "student would be free to pursue subjects
necessaty for his graduate work," thus giving him "an advantage over
those who now graduate with .. .fewer credits than students from other
schools."
Concluding his editorial comments in the Stag of Oct.16, 1963, the
student editor advanced the view that now "new electives ...could serve·
as a means of bringing a Catholicizing influence into other areas by
interdisciplinaty courses such as 'Church and State,' 'Medical Ethics,' etc."
as well as offering "the opportunity to major in Theology." In late April
1964, the Dean ofthe College ofArts and Sciences, Fr. James H. Coughlin,
S.]., announced the inauguration of a new system of courses that would
gradually be phased in with the start of the next academic year, in
21
September 1964. He explained that the prime purpose of the innovation
of reducing the number of courses a student would take in a semester
from six to five was to encourage him "to learn more in his field of
concentration." Thus by giving the individual reduced class hours, he
would have more time to attain a more comprehensive and profound
understanding of the subject matter in which he majored.
SUMMARY
On this note of reduction in the traditional emphasis of Thomistic
philosophy and Catholic theology, which long had been the established
foundation of Jesuit undergraduate university education, Fr. James E.
FitzGerald's presidency of Fairfield University came to·a close. In mid­June
1964, Fr. William C. McInnes, S.]., became the fourth president of
the University. In his six years as president, Fr. FitzGerald was rarely seen
by the student body or by most of the faculty. A tall, shy, retiring person,
he conducted the University's affairs from the Jesuit residence on the hill,
Bellarmine Hall. Under his direction, expansion of the university's
physical plant continued with the addition of the gymnasium, named
Alumni Hall, and a new dormitoty, Campion Hall. During his tenure in
office, the number of both undergraduate and graduate students
continued to grow, reaching 1,290 men enrolled in the undergraduate
college and. some 804 men and women matriculating in the university's
graduate education division bythe academic year 1963-64. Complementing
these successes, he left his successor with the "New Horizons Program"
for future expansion.
The contrast in style and personality between these two priests and
gentlemen educators was dramatically evident from the day the transfer
of presidential authority occurred. In the summer of 1964, Fr. McInnes
had the large lecture room on Canisius Hall's first floor rebuilt into an
executive suite of offices. Before the new academic year began in
September, the Office ofthe President and supporting administrative staff
were relocated down the hill from Bellarmine to Canisius and an open
door policy inaugurated. Now the faculty, students and administrative
officers alike could see and gain access to· discuss current needs and
problems with a vety outgoing and always willing to listen new university
president. Beyond establishing close daily contact with the University
22
community, Fr. McInnes quickly became a prominent public figure in
both local and statewide business, governmental, and social service
organizations, seeking to aid them by placing the University at their
service as a "think tank" discussing and finding possible solutions to their
varied needs and varied problems. Further discussion of Fr. McInnes'
presidency is a subject for another Chronicle of Fairfield University. It is
appropriate to close this Chronicle with the observation that the first four
presidents of the University dedicated their" lives as priests of the Society
ofJesus, and as teachers and educational leaders to the Ignatian goal: "Ad
Maiorem Dei Gloriam."
GeorgeB. Baehr, a member ofthe Class of1951, earned M.A·. andPh.D..
degrees at the University ofNotreDameand·taught thereandatMichigan
State UniversityandHolyApostlesSeminary beforehe returned to Fairfield
as a member ofthefaculty in History in 1962. He retired in the spring of
1990.
23
BIBUOGRAPHICAL SOURCES
PRIMARY SOURCES
A substantial amount of the infonnation essential to the writing of
this "Chronicle" was obtained from primary source materials. Especially
significant was the intelligence gained from the correspondence of two
presidents of Fairfield University, Fr. James H. Dolan, S.]., and his
successor, Fr. Joseph D. FitzGerald, S.]., complemented by that of two of
the early Deans, Frs. Laurence C. Langguth, S.]., and William E. Fitzgerald,
all of which can be found in the University's Archives. Also available in
the Archives were detailed "Financial Reports" by Fr. Harty L. Huss, S.].,
who proved to be a thrifty and astute financial manager ofthe institution's
resources in its early years.
A very helpful primary source, found either in the University
Archives or its Library Media Center on microfilm, is a collection of
newspaper articles covering the period 1949-1964 from such newspapers
as the Bridgeport Post, the Bridgeport Telegram, the Sunday Herald, the
Faiifield News, TheNewHaven Register, the Waterbury Republican, and
the Catholic Transcript. In addition, the Senior Class books entitled The
Manor, published by the graduating classes between 1951 and 1964,
provided a wealth of infonnation describing student organizations and
their activities, complemented by the Stag, the official newspaper pub­lished
by the students during the period 1949-1970.
Also consulted as primary source material were the "Interviews"
conducted by Mr. Richard Wirth of Fr. James H. Coughlin, S.]., retired
academic vice president and dean; Fr. Laurence C. Langguth, S.]., fonner
dean; and Fr. George S. Mahan, S.]., fonner executive assistant to the
president; and Professor Cannen Donnarumma, "Dean of the Faculty,"
having served from the opening day of University classes and still
teaching political science courses in the spring semester 1992. These
interviews are a part of the ongoing "Fairfield University Oral History"
program. Lastly, the Faiifield University: College ofArts and Sciences,
Catalogues Volumes I-XVIII, 1951-1967, yielded most useful material
concerning faculty staffing and growth together with changes in the
curriculum and course offerings.
24
SECONDARY SOURCES
Among the secondary sources consulted were monographs that
relate parallel Catholic Church and American historical and education
developments of the Twentieth Century, with emphasis on the period
1945-1970, including:
Burke, James L., S.]., Thejesuit Province ofNew England: the Formative
Yeat:S', Boston: New England Province of the Society of Jesus, 1976.
Donovan, JohnJ., TheAcademicMan in the Catholic College, New York:
Sheed and Ward, 1964.
Hennesy, James. S.]., American Catholics: A History ofthe
Roman Catholic Community in the United States, New York:
Oxford University Press, 1981 q:
Lapomarda, Vincent A., S.].. Thejesuit Heritage in New
England, Worcester: The Jesuits of Holy Cross, Inc., 1977
Link, Arthur S., and Catton. William B., American Epoch:
A History ofthe United States Since the 1890's, New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1967. 3rd Edition
Power, Edward]., A History ofCatholic Higher Education, Milwaukee:
Bruce Publishing Company, 1958.
Additional secondary sources which proved most helpful to the
author in the writing of this "Chronicle" were two unpublished theses,
one a Doctoral dissertation by Preville, Joseph R. "Fairfield University:
The Emergence of a Modem Catholic Institution," Boston College, 1985;
the sec~nd a Master's dissertation by Turcotte, Robert W., "A History of
Fairfield University," Trinity College, 1975.
George B. Baehr, Ph.D.
Class of1951
25