CHAPTER SIX

CATHOLIC REVIVAL
1930-1960

Let the College that was the first institution of higher learning to raise the torch of
education in Alabama also light and lead the way to full democracy in Alabama and the
Southland. Civil Rights? Spring Hill College is for them! For ourselves and for every
other citizen, regardless of creed or color. [Donnelly: 1948]

On Saturday morning, May 31, 1930 “high officials of Church and State gathered with
alumni and friends from North and South, in the shade of the graceful arches of the
arcade inclosing her luxuriant quadrangle.” Thus begins the description of the three-day
celebration of Spring Hill’s centennial year, in the florid prose of Fr. Michael Kenny.

At 9:30 a.m., the new 9-hole public golf course was inaugurated, with the antebellum
Stewart home, known as Gonzaga Hall, serving as the clubhouse. The next morning, in
front of the home, a solemn Mass was celebrated on the oak-lined “Gonzaga Avenue,” by
Bishop Toolen of Mobile, with several other dignitaries in attendance: the bishops of St.
Augustine and Lafayette, the abbot of the Benedictine monastery in Cullman, the Jesuit
and Dominican provincials, from New Orleans. That evening saw the blessing of the
cornerstone of Thomas Byrne Memorial Library, the College’s first free-standing library
and, after Mobile Hall, the second of the projected 15 buildings on the new collegiate
campus of “Greater Spring Hill.”

At the Centennial Alumni Banquet, Sidney Simon of the class of 1908, newly elected
president of the alumni association, was presented an award of recognition. As a Jewish
alumnus, in the midst of such an exuberantly Catholic celebration, he highlighted the fact
that “in his twenty years connection with Spring Hill he had never known a member of
the Faculty to influence unduly students of other faiths.” The Commencement exercises
took place on Monday, once again on the Avenue. In the morning, college degrees were
awarded to 25 graduates, with Governor Graves of Alabama and Mayor Walmsley of
New Orleans among the dignitaries on the platform. The mayor, class of 1908, was
baccalaureate speaker and typified the tone of the day with his words: “Fear not to be
with minorities if the minority is right.” Later that afternoon, high school diplomas were
awarded to 44 graduates, who were urged to “crown their education by collegiate degrees
in arts and sciences; but most of all in philosophy, the study of human mind and human
conduct, without which no education is complete.”1

Buildings, Grounds and Finances

In the midst of all the pomp and circumstance there was also a very specific agenda for
the centennial celebrations. The new collegiate campus would at last provide the
facilities for Spring Hill to realize its old dream of becoming a full university. For several
decades there had been talk of expanding into a university. During a visit to the campus
1
Quotes from Kenny, pp. 371-380. The Centennial commencement exercises seem to be the first to
be held on what later became known as the Avenue of the Oaks; the practice later became a cherished
tradition.

1
in 1903, which included brass bands playing Dixie and an address by Joseph Walsh, one
of the ten graduating seniors, Senator John Morgan, “loud in his praises of what he saw,”
declared that Spring Hill College should become Spring Hill University. 2 Under the
leadership of that same Joseph Walsh, now a Jesuit priest and since 1925 president of the
College, the College itself had been campaigning for the university plan. The ongoing
revolution in American higher education seemed to leave no long-term future for colleges
which failed to make the transition. Forty years earlier the presidents of Cornell and
Johns Hopkins had recommended that the college curriculum be reduced to two years,
followed by three years of professional or specialized studies. At the time, Dr. James
McCosh, former president of Princeton, saw this as an erosion of liberal studies and
“objected in the most pronounced terms.” But by 1930 the transition to a university-style
institution seemed to be an inevitable goal for liberal arts colleges. 3

At the banquet concluding the three-day centennial celebration, Hon. Palmer Pillans, the
toastmaster and a graduate of Yale University, “said he saw no reason why Spring Hill
College should not equal in power and expansion” his own alma mater, which “had an
even more modest inception.” Mayor Hartwell of Mobile then pledged the support of the
city and a representative of Governor Graves did the same for the state, “for a Spring Hill
University which will be a credit to the Southland.” The following year the library was
completed, the first permanent tennis courts were laid out on the grounds of the former
Deer Park, south of Mobile Hall, and a grand new entrance gate was built, facing Old
Shell Road.

But the collegiate campus would never see more than two of its fifteen buildings
completed, Thomas? Byrne Library and Mobile Hall. In 1932, one last addition was
made, as two rows of oak trees were planted, lining what was to become George
Washington Boulevard, the main road of the new campus. 4 The problem was money.
The entire plan depended on funding the construction projects, which had barely begun,
and on establishing a healthy endowment, which did not yet exist at all.

The Southern Association at that time required a minimum endowment of $500,000, but
had recognized provisionally, as “a tolerated substitute,” the contributed services of the
unsalaried Jesuit faculty and administration, which were well in excess of the
requirement. Completion of the plan for a Greater Spring Hill, with programs and
facilities at the university level, would only be possible with a true endowment, above
and beyond the unsalaried Jesuits. One of the actions taken at the centennial celebrations
was to elect a committee to pursue the Living Endowment plan: a proposal to compensate
for the lack of an actual endowment by securing pledges of annual giving which would
match the interest generated by the desired endowment. The campaign goal was a total
of $50,000 in annual giving, the equivalent of a million dollar endowment. 5

The original plan for a capital campaign had been approved by the consultors, in their
role as board of trustees, in 1922. They agreed to begin a drive for $50,000, for “Greater
Spring Hill,” and two years later the campaign was finally inaugurated. The kickoff
banquet was held at the Battle House Hotel in downtown Mobile on April 22, 1924.

2
Hogan history; also see Bio file on Sen Morgan; Walsh: Springhillian Oct 1925
3
Thomas Hughes, SJ, report on the 2nd annual convention of College Association of the Middle
States and Maryland, at Princeton (November 28-29, 1890): WL vol. XX (1891), 8-9.
4
See Map of Greater SH? Or Kenny? After the new campus plan was abandoned, most of the oaks
were removed for construction of buildings not a part of the original plan.
5
Kenny 373-4, 383.

2
Earlier that year, with pledges from the Mobile Chamber of Commerce and Mobile
alumni, the campaign was hailed as going “Over Top” and plans were announced for
three new buildings—Mobile Hall (from Mobile alumni), Alumni Hall (from all other
alumni), Administration Building (from a major donor)—to form the nucleus of the new
campus. 6 In reality, however, the drive failed to get much beyond pledges. After being
postponed for two years, it was resumed in 1926 with a new goal of $1 million and
started off rather successfully.

In 1927, Mobile Hall was completed, but then the Great Depression slammed the country
in 1929, leaving the new campaign stymied once again and most of the pledges still
unpaid. By 1930 the building to be funded by a major donor had been re-designated as
the library, a gift from the Byrne family of Chicago, and the mounting debt incurred by
building Mobile Hall was beginning to undermine the College’s financial stability.

Just before the centennial celebrations, Fr. Walsh had given a radio address about the new
Living Endowment plan, reminding listeners that several projects were still needed:
Administration Building, Auditorium, Stadium and Gymnasium. He pointed out that
only one-third of the actual cost of education was covered by tuition, making a true
endowment a necessity as well as a goal. Birmingham Southern already had an
endowment of $650,000 and Howard (later Samford), of one million, but Spring Hill was
still at zero.

In 1931, a group of local benefactors, under the leadership of Captain Joseph Walsh
(father of the president), created the Spring Hill College Foundation. An independent
entity, under lay leadership, the Foundation created the college’s first formal trust fund,
which began with $17,000. Two years later it had grown to $40,000, but was still far
from the goal of $2 million, set by its Board of Governors, or even from the $500,000
required by the Southern Association.7

As the depression lingered and as more and more Catholic high schools were being built
across the country, Spring Hill’s high school enrollments plummeted. Originally known
as the “junior division,” the high school had traditionally enrolled the great majority of
Spring Hill students and most of them were boarders. In 1931, when the college numbers
passed the 200 mark for the first time in history, the high school population was already
beginning to decrease. Billed as the nation’s second oldest Catholic boarding school,
after Georgetown, the high school was forced to close in 1935. As a result of the closure,
Spring Hill’s total enrollment dropped from 302 to 128. The following year Fr. Walsh,
now serving as provincial, wrote the president about a plan for refinancing the debt. The
general had given permission for taking out a $40,000 loan, but would not be likely to
allow any further loans. It would be necessary to “act radically” in order to avoid “the
possible necessity of closing the college at the end of next year…If St. Joseph wishes to
save the situation he must make haste, for the outlook is rather dark.” 8

The time seemed to be ripe to make a momentous change that had been long desired by
Bishop Toolen: opening the college to women students. That decision would respond to
the bishop’s concern that there was no Catholic college for women in the entire state, and

6
S 12/20/24: last January
7
by Captn Walsh, Father of Fr. JM Walsh. Growth to $40,000 reported in Mobile Pres Register,
Sun, 4/30/1933. Also gift of 2000 acres in Theodore? Board of Governors, etc.
8
Walsh to Druhan, July 2,1936: ASHC, Druhan papers

3
at the same time help rebuild enrollments. But, as will be seen in greater detail, the
superior general in Rome considered coeducation an unacceptable alternative.

Then came the good news that the New Orleans Province had decided to begin its own
program of philosophical studies for Jesuit scholastics. Opened in 1937, the philosophate
brought an infusion of new students, new faculty and a strong academic program. A semi-
autonomous program, with its own staff and statutes, it was located in the east wing of
the Administration Building, the quarters of the former high school. The Jesuit
community chapel, on the west side of the same building, was enlarged and furnished
with new stained glass windows. Around 1938 the shrine of Our Lady of the Way, built
in 1928 near Gonzaga Hall (the antebellum Stewart home), was moved to a wooded spot
north of St. Joseph Chapel, along the path of the young Jesuit seminarians. The transfer
of this little monument was a telling symbol of the abandonment of that ambitious plan
for a Greater Spring Hill, with its own university campus. It was also a sign of the
resurrection, on the level of philosophy rather than theology, of the college’s very first
program, the ecclesiastical seminary. 9

The philosophy program was primarily for scholastics from the New Orleans Province,
but it also drew broadly from the other Jesuit provinces of the United States and even
Latin America. Combined with a strong science program for lay students in the pre-med
track, the Spring Hill philosophate was particularly suited for Jesuits who were destined
for further studies in a scientific field. With time, the presence of the Jesuit House of
Studies also attracted students of other religious communities. The Brothers of the
Sacred Heart began coming to Spring Hill in 1948 and two years later dedicated their
new scholasticate just east of the campus. Religious women [years? Grps?] of several
congregations came to the summer or extension programs.

In 1952 the New Orleans Province inaugurated Assumption Hall, a modern facility built
expressly as the Jesuit philosophate. Even though the scholastics, Jesuit or Sacred Heart,
were generally segregated from regular lay students, from 1937 through the 1960s they
would be a conspicuous presence on campus. They were not allowed to socialize with
lay students; they lived, ate, studied and worshipped in their own spaces; their philosophy
classes were in separate sections, with their own faculty and taught in Latin; but they took
many courses, especially science and lab, together with lay students and significantly
raised the overall grade point average of the student body. By 1940 there were some 60
Jesuit students of philosophy, and in 1954 the enrollment peaked at 95.

The opening of the philosophate signaled the Jesuit province’s commitment to Spring
Hill and also helped build its fragile enrollment. But financial problems continued to dog
the College. In 1938 the Southern Association placed the College on probation, due to its
insufficient endowment and large debt. With 25 unsalaried Jesuit faculty and only 9 lay
faculty, whose annual salary ranged from $1,000 to $2,700, there was no room for
reduction of payroll.10

9
Several of the stained glass windows of the “Domestic Chapel” (which had been located on the 2 nd
floor west wing of the Administration Building) now hang in the Barter Room of Burke Memorial Library.
Details of the Waysiders shrine are found in ASHC: Druhan papers and Waysider folder. The seminary
program was always very small (never more than 15 seminarians), but it began in 1830, even before the
construction of the first frame buildings on the Spring Hill property, and was discontinued in the early 1880s.
The Ecclesiastical Seminary of St. Joseph was, of course, a program of theology, not philosophy.
10
SACS visit 1/27-30/1938: quote re “probation will help SHC”

4
Despite the serious financial straits, Fr. John Druhan, president and a football player in
his own college days at Spring Hill, resisted dropping the football program and even
increased the debt by renovating the grandstands and installing floodlights for night
games. For three consecutive years the provincial expressed concerns over the cost of the
football program, which in 1936 showed a loss of $8,000. Fr. John Bolland, official
Visitor to the Province in 1936, also expressed concern. Finally in 1938, under pressure
from the provincial and the general, Druhan agreed to the elimination of all athletic
scholarships and the sale of 20 acres west of the golf course, to help reduce the debt.

In January 1941 the Southern Association issued another warning that unless the debt
were further reduced and endowment increased, the college would again be placed on
probation. A New York firm was contracted to manage an Emergency Drive and by
December, Spring Hill was again granted full standing. After the United States entered
the war that same December, enrollments at the all-male college plummeted again, and
the football program was “temporarily” discontinued, never again to return.

In the aftermath of the Great Depression, other colleges were also struggling. At the same
time that Spring Hill was reinstated, Mississippi Southern (Hattiesburg) and Judson
(Marion, Alabama) were continued on probation. Fortunately for Spring Hill, the war also
swelled the military presence in Mobile. As there was no other college or university in
town, Spring Hill was chosen as a training site for the Army Air Force in 1943, and soon
there were 200 cadets in Mobile Hall. Potatoes were planted to help relieve the wartime
shortages—the last actual use of the old college farm. The next year the college’s
summer vacation house on the eastern shore of Mobile Bay, Loyola Villa (purchased in
1876), was sold to the Jesuit province, and another fund drive was planned, though
delayed.11

In 1946, as soon as the war was over, the college’s full-time enrollment jumped from 164
to an all-time high of 643, including large numbers of veterans supported by the G.I. Bill.
In all there were 762 students and for the first time ever, extra chairs were needed in the
College Chapel for the Mass of the Holy Spirit. The farm machinery was sold and the
old potato fields became part of the new 18-hole golf course, which opened in 1948. Fr.
William D. (“Doc”) O’Leary, president from 1938 to 1946, had re-financed the large
bonded debt from the construction of Mobile Hall, followed strict budgetary policies
during the war and then capitalized on Mobile’s wartime boom to raise funds that fully
retired the debt. Spring Hill was finally on a firm financial basis and by 1956 had at last
achieved its goal of a $500,000 endowment.12

Catholic colleges and Catholic culture

If financial challenges left Spring Hill in ongoing budgetary uncertainties, there was no
lack of either clarity or confidence in its mission as a Jesuit and Catholic college in the
American Southland. Governor Al Smith’s visit to the College on November 20, 1928
was celebrated with the band playing his campaign theme song, “Sidewalks of New

11
SHC not alone: when probation was lifted in 12/1941, Mississippi Southern (Hattiesburg) and
Judson were continued on probation. See HC 1/10/41, 4/5/41, 1/10/44, 7/10/44; Mobile Register 12/6/41,
p.14. The provincial expressed concerns over the football program, which lost $8,000 in 1936, in the
Memoriales of 1935, 1936 and 1937, as did the Visitor (Fr. John Bolland) in 1936: HC 4/8/36, 11/30/36,
12/1/36. Also see Yancey: 170f. Land sale, 20 acres for $4,000: HC 6/26//39.
12
1952 [Smith Commencement]: re O’Leary

5
York,” and one of the Jesuit faculty presenting him an acrostic poem, with his name
forming the initial letters of each line. Smith’s defeat in the presidential election earlier
that month had been preceded by a renewal of anti-Catholic nativism across the nation.
Though still a small minority in Alabama, with a historic presence on the Gulf Coast and
a concentration of recent immigrants in the steel region around Birmingham, Catholics
now constituted the largest religious body in the nation. But in most of the country they
were still perceived as a foreign church that threatened a solidly Protestant America.

In Alabama and throughout the South, the Ku Klux Klan was vigilant in its opposition to
Catholics as well Blacks. Sidney Catts, the Alabama-born governor of Florida (1917-
1921), found a ready audience when he direly warned of the Pope’s plan to invade the
United States and set up new headquarters for the Vatican. As outsiders, even though
most were at least second or third generation Americans, Catholics had developed a
vibrant sub-culture. Just as American Blacks had created a complete set of separate
institutions, Catholics had their own social organizations, like the Knights of Columbus;
their own professional societies, like the Catholic Artists Guild and the American
Catholic Philosophical Association; their own journals and radio shows, like the Catholic
World and Bishop Fulton Sheen’s “The Catholic Hour.” More significantly, they had their
own school system, including elementary, secondary and higher education. When Mayor
Walmsley told the graduates of 1930, “Fear not to be with minorities if the minority is
right,” he was speaking as a proud member of one of the country’s great minorities.

Over the next three decades the Catholic sub-culture grew in self-confidence and
influence, until another Catholic candidate was actually elected president of the United
States in November 1960. The election of John F. Kennedy would coincide with the
eclipse of the Catholic ghetto, but for three decades Spring Hill, like other Catholic
colleges, played a key role in forming Catholic professionals who were secure in their
faith and committed to a Catholic vision of life in a Protestant America.

In its 1936-7 catalog, the College included a new section, entitled “Statement of
Objectives.” The “ultimate objective” was described first, quoting the encyclical of Pius
XI, On Christian Education: “to cooperate with divine grace in forming the true and
perfect Christian…the supernatural man who thinks, judges and acts constantly and
consistently in accordance with right reason, illumined by the supernatural light of the
example and teachings of Christ; in other words, to use the current term, the true and
finished man of character.”13 The catalog then described the “immediate objectives”
which articulated more concretely the “special function in contemporary American life”
of a Jesuit liberal arts college.

In contrast to a secular institution, which may indeed provide opportunities for instruction
in Catholic faith and morals (through the Newman Club or Catholic Student Center) and
participation in the sacraments (Mass and confession), the “Jesuit college by its traditions
can never be content with simply presenting Catholicism as a creed, a code or cult. It
must strive to communicate the riches of Catholicism as a culture” in order to give
meaning and coherence to the whole of life. It aims to form Catholic leaders “who have
intelligent and appreciative contact with Catholicism as a culture” and will be able to
“take an active part in the service of Church and society.” After clarifying the goal of
educating “the whole man, his intellect, his will, his emotions, his senses, his
imagination, his aesthetic sensibilities, his memory, and his powers of expression…for

13
Divini Illius Magistri (1929): #94-96

6
the sanctification of the individual and the betterment of society,” the elective studies are
finally mentioned in a brief concluding paragraph: “In addition to these objectives” the
chosen area of concentration will “prepare her graduates for successful work in
professional schools and in business.”

The inculcation of “Catholicism as a culture” would build on student life as well as

academics. The next section in the catalog, “The Government and Welfare of the
Students,” addresses the discipline of the College, whose enforcement, “while
considerate, is unflinchingly firm,” since “a system of education which discounts the
formation of character is pernicious.” Suspension or dismissal could be incurred by a
number of “serious offenses” which are specified: “serious insubordination, repeated
violation of regulations, neglect of studies, possession or use of intoxicating liquors,
habitual use of obscene or profane language, and in general any serious form of
immorality.” Religious formation included a graded course in Catholic Religion, daily
Mass (required for boarders only) and the annual three-day retreat (required of all
Catholic students, both boarders and commuters). Non-Catholics were provided special
courses in religion and were “permitted and encouraged to attend to their own religious
obligations on Sunday.”

In a special pastoral letter, written for the centennial celebration, Bishop Toolen praised
the long record of Spring Hill as a “complete institution” and warned that secular schools
were as dangerous, in their own gentle and subtle way, as the overtly atheistic schools of
Communist Russia that “shut God and Christ and Religion out of all schools with cruel
force.” Toolen concluded his seven-page letter by urging Catholics to support their
schools, “especially the schools of higher education, for their needs are greatest, as is
your need of them. It is these schools that supply the leaders and the motive power of
business and industry and government; and the public defenders of your church; and the
vast expense of modern requirements make their maintenance impossible without
external support.”14

Almost a decade later, Spring Hill’s dean, Fr. Andrew Smith, continued to plead the case
for a more faithful and generous commitment to “a complete and universal, therefore a
Catholic system of instruction.” In his mind, the mission of Catholic education could not
be clearer, in a world struggling with widespread economic failure, social unrest and new
totalitarian regimes: “The world that will follow the present debacle will need men and
women of the strongest moral fibre and the clearest religious outlook. Our task right now
is to produce them, slowly and laboriously without perhaps seeing the effects.” And yet
parents, sometimes because of financial constraints, but “more often from a distorted
sense of values or native obstinacy, still fail to send their children to the Catholic
institutions.”15

In fact, some 50% of Catholic students were not attending Catholic schools, a statistic
which Smith interpreted as flagrant disloyalty to the Church in its creed of education. In
the Diocese of Mobile, as in many others throughout the country, Catholics were required
to send their children to a parochial school, if one was available. Those who did not
follow the policy were to be barred from the sacraments, unless they had explicit
permission from the bishop. Applying this same logic to higher education, Smith pointed
to Pius XI’s encyclical of 1929 as “the clearly expressed law of the Church forbidding
parents to send their children to any but Catholic schools,” unless there were exceptional
14
Centennial Pastoral Letter of Rt. Rev. T.J. Toolen, Bishop of Mobile, May 7, 1930 Kenny 392
15
Credo & Confiteor 8,10

7
circumstances and explicit permission of the bishop. The pope held that “neutral” or
“lay” schools, “from which religion is excluded,” are “contrary to the fundamental
principles of education.” He explicitly confirmed the provisions in canon law, forbidding
Catholic attendance at schools that were neutral or mixed (open to both Catholics and
non-Catholics), without “the approval of the Ordinary alone, under determined
circumstances of place and time, and with special precautions.”16

Smith found the “open disobedience” to the law “shocking”: “Everywhere the variety of
excuses given for evading the law or claiming exception is astounding.” According to the
encyclical, “To be a fit place for Catholic students it is necessary that all the teaching and
the whole organization of the school, and its teachers, syllabi, and textbooks in every
branch be regulated by the Christian spirit under the direction and maternal supervision
of the Church, so that religion may be in truth the foundation and crown of the youth’s
entire training.” Clearly, Newman Clubs for Catholic students at state universities were at
most a partial solution what the pope had referred to as “a merely tolerated situation” and
could never fulfill the Church’s expectations for higher education.

Smith considered the “extent of disobedience to this clear teaching of the Church not only
an obstacle to the progress of education by depriving us of the united front we so badly
need, but a scandal for potential converts to the faith.” The underlying problem was a
skewed way of thinking about higher education: “pagan standards” were “accepted and
glibly expressed by too many of our most respectable Catholics” whose primary ambition
is financial betterment, “the only yardstick of progress…The larger issue of their
usefulness to society, and particularly of their greater merit in the Church Militant is
completely blocked out by the fascination of immediate worldly success.” 17

Directives from Rome

At the commencement of 1952, in his first year as president, Smith awarded Bishop
Toolen an honorary degree, in recognition of his 25 years as pastor of the diocese and
friend of the college. He was a bishop who “has exercised a paternal providence over our
Spring Hill Family. Every important development of the college in recent years has had
his strong backing and enthusiastic support.” Not all Jesuit colleges enjoyed such strong
support from the local bishop, and the key role played by the schools in America’s
Catholic sub-culture had both advantages and disadvantages.

In March 1927, the Society’s superior general, Fr. Wlodimir Ledochowski, wrote to the
provincials of the United States concerning charges that had been brought against
American Jesuit universities (by certain unnamed bishops) for not being truly Catholic.
Cardinal Merry del Val, head of the Holy Office under Pius XI, had told the general that
The Catholic University of America and the University of Notre Dame were the only
truly Catholic universities in the United States. Jesuit institutions were accused of hiring
professors who were “for the most part Protestants, Jews, even atheists,” and Jesuits
themselves were said to exercise “practically no influence on the spiritual and religious
welfare of the students.”

Ledochowski recognized that some of the charges were false and others might be
exaggerated, but he wanted more data and sent along a 15-point questionnaire to be
16
Archbishop Toolen’s policy in Mobile: see ohl letter 10/28/07. Divini Illius Magistri #78-80
17
Smith, Credo & Conflict: 1-3.

8
completed by all Jesuit colleges and universities “with the greatest care and precision
possible.” A year later, based on the findings of the survey, he wrote to all American
Jesuits about their educational apostolate. While pleased with the provisions made for the
religious instruction of Catholics, he was concerned about four “abuses”: (1) the number
of non-Catholic students should be decreased, since their presence “is not in itself
desirable and can at most be tolerated.” (2) non-Catholic professors should not exceed
7% in the college division or 50% in the professional schools. (3) non-Catholic deans are
not to be named “under any circumstances.” (4) Although permission had been given by
Rome for religious women to attend summer courses, that situation was “merely tolerated
for the time being” and should be discontinued “as soon as other provision can be made.”
In the high schools and undergraduate colleges there was to be no question of co-
education, since “the whole idea is disapproved by the Church.”

Most of the charges applied to the larger Jesuit colleges, which were already growing into
complex universities, with numerous professional schools and rapid expansion. But
the letter also marked the beginning of a more active interest on the part of the general, in
the affairs of American Jesuit colleges. In practice, U.S. Jesuits “quietly implemented
those instructions which were clearly beneficial and wisely disregarded those injunctions
which, anachronistic and unrealistic, were beyond the possibility of fulfillment.” 18

In addition to veiled attacks on the Catholicity of the Jesuit schools, there was public
questioning of their intellectual quality. In April 1934 the New York Times carried an
article on the recent report of the American Council on Education, which identified sixty-
three institutions on their list of approved graduate schools. Among Catholic universities
only two were included, The Catholic University of America and Notre Dame. The fact
that no Jesuit institution was able to garner national recognition was brought to the
general’s attention when at least one hundred copies of the article were sent to his office
in Rome.

Whether it was a question of Catholic identity or academic excellence, the general was
committed to upgrading the Society’s universities, colleges and high schools in the
United States. The educational institutions were, after all, the primary ministry of
American Jesuits. In 1931 he established the Commission on Higher Studies and, based
on its recommendations, issued his Instruction on Studies and Teaching in 1934, leading
at first to the appointment of a Commisarius and eventually to the establishment of the
Jesuit Educational Association.19

A decade before the general’s mandates, the presidents themselves had taken some
preliminary steps on their own initiative. At the 1920 meeting [1st or 2nd?] of the Catholic
Educational Association in New York, Fr. Edward Tivnan, president of Fordham,
proposed that Jesuits organize meetings of their own, in order to address common issues.
On March 27, 1921, Fr. Joseph Walsh, dean and later president of Spring Hill, attended
the first-ever national meeting of Jesuit college leaders, at Campion College, in Prairie du
Chien, Wisconsin. With representatives from 10 of the 26 Jesuit colleges in the United
States, the five-day meeting concluded with 24 recommendations [or was this from
IPC?].20
18
Ledochowski to Provincials: March 12, 1927; to Fathers and Brothers of American Assistancy,
January 7, 1928 (ARSI ???] cited in Fitzgerald 21-4, 37, 223f.
19
list docs: 1927 letter; 1928 letter; 1930 letter; 1931 CHS; 1934 Instruction
20
The other institutions were Santa Clara, Gonzaga, Fordham, Campion, Georgetown, Canisius, St.
Ignatius (Loyola/Chicago), Creighton, Loyola/New Orleans, Loyola/Montreal: Gleason 60f

9
One of the recommendations was the formation of an Inter-Province Committee on
studies. Its goal would be to encourage “continuity, union and cooperation” among Jesuit
institutions, in order to confront charges of mediocrity and regain a place of prominence
in American higher education. At the recommendation of the American provincials, the
creation of the Committee was approved by Ledochowski, but with the stipulation that it
had no deliberative or legislative authority and that any innovation in the plan of studies
would require final approval by the general in Rome. It met annually from 1921 to 1931,
when it was replaced by the Commission on Higher Studies. 21

The Inter-Province Committee recommended that each province establish a permanent

committee on studies and designate a full-time Prefect of Studies. The Prefect would
make regular visitations of all institutions in the province and meet annually with the
other Province Prefects, “to unite our colleges in the great work of education.” It also
recommended that all Jesuit schools work towards accreditation by their regional
association, if they had not already done so. Accreditation, of course, would require the
introduction of what had become the standard features of American higher education: at
least seven distinct academic departments (offering a selection of majors and minors), as
well as administrative and physical separation of the college and high school divisions,
whenever both existed on the same campus.

At the Committee’s 1923 meeting, held in New Orleans, Fr. Francis X. Twellmeyer,
former Spring Hill president and first Prefect of Studies for the New Orleans Province,
attended as a new member.22 Recommendations from that year’s meeting included the
need to train more Jesuit faculty with doctoral credentials and to provide college-standard
libraries (with at least 8,000 volumes, a professional librarian and annual budget for new
books). The Committee also proposed creating a national association of Jesuit colleges
and universities, to unify standards and gain recognition for excellence, as a counter-
balance to the demands and encroachments of the regional accrediting agencies that were
gaining ever greater influence.

This proposal for an internal Jesuit standardizing agency was the only recommendation of
the 1923 report that was rejected by the general and the provincials. Despite the merits of
the idea, the Jesuit superiors wanted to avoid antagonizing other Catholic colleges and
universities, which already complained of “Jesuit exclusivism.” But it still seemed to be a
good proposal and six years later, Fr. John Salter, the New Orleans Provincial,
recommended once again the creation of a Jesuit Educational Association “of such a
character and with such high requirements as to be recognized by the various
standardizing agencies, and that thus our freedom in following out our educational policy
be safeguarded.” Eventually, after another decade, the Jesuit Educational Association was
formed (1940), in a less ambitious model.23

When Ledochowski created the Commission on Higher Studies in 1931, the Inter-
Province Committee was disbanded, but its work was continued. The new Commission
consisted of one representative from each of the six American provinces. New Orleans
was represented by Fr. John Hynes, dean at Loyola University and former dean at Spring
Hill. The Commission began its work by sending an extensive questionnaire to each of
21
See: Fitzgerald, 6
22
See 1923 catalog, which is the first listing of a Province Prefect of Studies. In that same catalog
Twellmeyer is listed on the faculty of Loyola, NO
23
Salter’s letter to US Provs & Ledochowski (1929): Fitzgerald 3-9; 29

10
the Jesuit colleges and universities. The results were summarized in a 234-page report,
which was sent to the general in August 1932. Two years later the general issued his
Instruction on Studies and Teaching, “the result of years of study, labor and prayer… in
the hope that it will initiate a new era in the field of Jesuit education in the United States
and supply that central direction for which many of Ours have been asking so
earnestly.”24

Calling for “combined, unremitting efforts” both to renew Jesuit schools in their
distinctive identity and to enhance the Society’s reputation “as the leading teaching body
of your country,” the Instruction mandated the first nationwide organizational structure of
Jesuit schools. The Association of Jesuit Universities, Colleges and High Schools was
created in 1934, with the goal of promoting national cooperation among Jesuit schools,
through “united purpose and concerted action.” According to the Instruction, there was to
be an experimental phase of three years, after which the plan would be reviewed, revised
and formally promulgated. Fr. Daniel O’Connell was named national secretary, with
powers of “commisarius.” This rarely used title made him a direct representative of the
general, with full authority for implementation of the Instruction. After making an
official visitation of every Jesuit school in the country, O’Connell sent reports and
recommendations to the provincials and the general. In 1936 the unusual office of
commisarius, which held authority even over the provincials, was suspended, but
O’Connell continued as secretary of the Executive Committee, which then organized the
Jesuit Educational Association in 1937.25

Not surprisingly, the goal of national cooperation was met with resistance, especially
when the national authority came into conflict with the local authority. During his
visitation to New Orleans in 1935, O’Connell had directed the provincial to transfer
Andrew Smith from Spring Hill College to Loyola University. Young and energetic,
Smith had just completed his doctorate at the University of Chicago and was serving as
dean at Spring Hill and province prefect of studies. O’Connell insisted on the need to
upgrade the academic leadership at Loyola by sending one of the few Jesuits with an
earned doctorate from a major university, but the provincial and his consultors disagreed
with the directive on other grounds. After an appeal for reconsideration was denied by
O’Connell, the provincial, Fr. Joseph Walsh, wrote directly to the general, explaining his
concern that Smith would be “seriously damaged by contact with the irregulars of
Loyola.” A native of Mobile and former president of Spring Hill, the provincial prevailed.
O’Connell’s zeal in moving Jesuit schools from an institutional provincialism to “united
purpose and concerted action” spawned a number of other confrontations across the
country, and the following year his powers as commisarius were suspended.

In October 1937 Fr. Edward Rooney was named to succeed O’Connell as executive
director of the new Jesuit Educational Association, a position he held for the next 29
years. In April 1938 Rooney initiated the Jesuit Educational Quarterly, which he
envisioned as “a powerful influence in achieving union and cooperation among the Jesuit
provinces.” In 1940 the Constitutions of the JEA were promulgated, establishing a Board
of Governors (consisting of the U.S. Jesuit Provincials), an Executive Director and an
Executive Committee (consisting of the Province Prefects of Study), with the provinces
divided into three regions (East, Midwest, West).

24
See JEQ 11 (1948-9) for full text of Instructio: pp.69-74
25
Ledochowski to US Provincials 12/8/1930: Fitzgerald 24-25; JEA: Fitzgerald 54ff.

11
The JEA annual meeting brought together presidents, deans and high school principals
from all the Jesuit schools in the country. Standing commissions were set up to study
particular areas: e.g., liberal arts, graduate schools, professional schools. Institutes were
organized on special topics: e.g., for college deans (1948 at Regis) and for college
religion teachers (1951 at Holy Cross). As Executive Director, Rooney made annual
reports to the Board of Governors and represented U.S. Jesuit schools at conferences with
the general in Rome and at educational meetings throughout the world. 26

Final approval of the Instruction’s norms was to have been given by Ledochowski after
three years of experimentation, but the process was interrupted by the Second World War.
In 1948 the new general, John B. Janssens, formally issued the long-delayed approval. In
doing so, he reminded American Jesuits that the ultimate goal was not simply “a
consistently high level of achievement in the field of education.” Rather, in the mind of
St. Ignatius, education was “primarily a spiritual work.” And this spiritual goal was to
guide decisions about inaugurating or discontinuing schools, as well as strategies for
achieving excellence in learning and culture, in order to “advance the honor of the
Church and the glory of the Creator and Lord of all.”27

Spring Hill College was well connected with JEA, since its dean Fr. Andrew Smith
served as Province Prefect of Studies almost continuously from 1936 to 1952, when he
was named president of the college. For a short interval (1937-1940) he was replaced by
Fr. John Hynes, who was also at Spring Hill, serving as dean of the new philosophate. As
Province Prefect, Smith served on the JEA Executive Committee and was also elected for
a term as Vice-President of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools.

It was Rooney’s hope that the Province Prefect would become a key position for effective
coordination and collaboration on a national scale. He expected it to be a full-time and
authoritative position in every province, held by men of prestige. But in practice the
president and dean of each institution continued to answer directly to the provincial,
undercutting any real authority coming from the national office, by way of the prefects.

In fact, the provincials were always wary of what seemed a tendency of the JEA
leadership to infringe on their authority over all the works and men of their province, as
legislated by the Jesuit Constitutions. Supported by the general, they insisted, for
example, that the Board of Governors (the provincials) have final approval of all JEA
decisions. In 1950 the JEA Executive Committee, which then included Smith from the
New Orleans Province, drafted a statement “On the Duties and Functions of Province
Prefects,” suggesting that the prefect’s authority be not merely advisory but “to some
extent administrative also.” The Board of Governors saw this approach as competing
with the authority of the provincials and re-drafted the statement to make it quite clear
that the prefect’s function was indeed advisory and not administrative. A disappointed
Rooney made his case with the general as well, but to no avail. The prefects would play
an important role in promoting doctoral studies for more and more Jesuit scholastics, but
they would have no more than an advisory voice in the actual running of Jesuit colleges
and universities.28

During the decade following the end of the Second World War, the commitment of Jesuit
education to building a Catholic culture was seen as fundamental. In the words of the
26
Fitzgerald 48; 54ff; 62; 65; 91. JEQ: 32 volumes, annually until March 1970.
27
JEA ??? (1948)
28
Fitzgerald 94f

12
general, “And surely if our schools were to graduate men learned in their profession but
poorly instructed in their faith and irresolute in its practice and in zeal for its propagation,
they would not warrant our present vast expenditure of men and energies.” 29

Rise and Fall of Catholic Culture

Jesuit colleges were pursuing their twin goals of higher intellectual standards (and the
corresponding national recognition), along with “more united purpose and action” as a
network of institutions with a common vision and coordinated plan. Together with other
Catholic colleges and universities, they also played an important role in the flowering of
the Catholic Renaissance during the 1930s and 40s. In the face of the Great Depression,
the rise of totalitarian and officially atheistic states, and the massive devastation of two
World Wars, intellectuals like Christopher Dawson and Jacques Maritain pointed to the
revival of a Catholic worldview as the answer to the problems of a disintegrating world.

Thomism, or Neoscholastic philosophy, was seen as the foundation for this revival, since
it “provided a rational justification for religious faith, supplied the principles for applying
faith to personal and social life, and thus constituted their basic resource in the campaign
to reorder society and culture in accordance with the Christian vision.” As the philosophy
of common sense realism provided a guiding vision for Protestant colleges of the 19 th
century, the Thomism of the Catholic Revival offered an alternative cultural vision for
American Catholics, creating “a systemic linkage between higher education and the
Catholic Renaissance.”30

As Jesuit educators pointed out, “Scholastic Philosophy is a stable, universal and certain
system of thought, a real philosophy of life, something to which [students] can anchor all
their views and thoughts and knowledge.” In the words of historian Philip Gleason,
“confidence that Thomism could overcome modern error inspired Catholic educators to
talk of creating a Catholic culture that would ultimately displace the flawed culture of
modernity.”31 William McGucken, a leading Jesuit educator, articulated this same vision
for the National Catholic Educational Association:

The Catholic college will not be content with presenting Catholicism as a creed, a
code, or a cult. Catholicism must be seen as a culture; hence, the graduates of the
Catholic college will go forth not merely trained in Catholic doctrine, but they
will have seen the whole sweep of Catholicism, its part in the building up of our
western civilization, past and present… They will have before them not merely
the facts in the natural order but those in the supernatural order, which give
meaning and coherence to the whole of life.32

Clearly, the philosophy program had become the centerpiece of the core curriculum for
Jesuit schools. In the traditional curriculum, following the Ratio, philosophy was only
taught in the final year of studies, and most courses were taught in Latin. Now it was
essential that it be taught throughout the curriculum and in the language of the students.
As a kind of Christian apologetics, it actually taught more theology than the religion
courses, which were primarily a weekly class in college-level catechism. At Spring Hill,
29
Fr. Gen. Janssens, Approval of Instruction norms: 1948
30
Gleason: 115, 137
31
Gleason: 16-17; 119 [American Assistancy Report 1931-32]
32
NCEAB 1935, cited in Gleason 149

13
from the 1930s through the 1960s, 18 hours of philosophy were taught, with the first
course taken in the sophomore year. Religion was taught each semester for one credit
hour (a total of 8 credits), later increased to two (a total of 16 credits). While Philosophy
covered all the areas of the Neoscholastic system, from Logic to Metaphysics, Religion
offered a general survey of Catholic doctrine, with an alternative program for non-
Catholic students.33

Facing Page: CREDO OF SPRING HILL COLLEGE [Catalog 1947, p.11; until omitted
in revision of 1962-64

Of course the program for religious formation consisted of much more than courses in
philosophy and religion. As announced in the Catalog:

Week-day Mass is required of all Catholic boarding students, frequent, even

daily, Communion is encouraged and quite generally practiced. Special
devotions are practiced towards the Sacred Heart on the first Friday of the month,
and towards the Blessed Virgin Mary during the months of October and May. A
wonderful occasion of grace for many is the annual three-day Retreat given in the
first semester and obligatory on all Catholic students, boarders and day scholars
alike. [1947-8, p.19]

As a nationwide Catholic youth movement, the Jesuit-sponsored Sodality of the Blessed

Virgin Mary played a particularly active role in the campaign to create a Catholic culture.
Daniel Lord became one of the best known Jesuits in the country as he revitalized the
moribund sodality movement among Catholic high school and college students. He
published the popular magazine, The Queen’s Work, held regional meetings and founded
the Summer School of Catholic Action. The program of the sodalities aimed to energize
young people both with personal devotions and with the implementation of Catholic
Social Teaching as applied to the problems American society, with special focus on issues
of labor and racism. Spiritual leadership was to lead to social action, based on Catholic
truth.34

The actual implementation of this grandiose vision of nurturing Catholicism as a culture,

whether through the curriculum of philosophy and religion or through the various
programs of spirituality and sodality, was often a very different story. In 1936 Fr. John
Bolland, provincial of the English Province, was appointed by the general as visitor of the
New Orleans Province. In November he wrote the president, Fr. John Druhan, asking
very bluntly about reports that his instructions concerning the teaching of religion and
philosophy “are not being faithfully carried out at Spring Hill.” He cited concerns about
numerous exemptions from required courses in theodicy, psychology, ethics, religion and
sociology, and about excessive absences from the senior religion class. He asked Druhan
to investigate and report back at his earliest convenience: “If the accounts are false or
exaggerated I shall be only too happy to learn the fact. If they are true, it is an open
disregard of my instructions.”35

33
1947-8 Catalog: Catholics took 4 of 6 options in Freshman and Sophomore years (Moral
Guidance, Commandments, Seven Sacraments, Christian Life and Worship, Christian Social Order, Christian
Marriage); Christian Apologetics in Junior year; History of the Church in Senior year. Non-Catholics took
Comparative Religions and Biblical Criticism alternately, as freshmen or sophomores; Analysis of Faith and
Christian Morals alternately, as juniors or seniors.
34
Gleason 152ff. add re SHC and Sodality, SSCA
35
Fitzgerald 54; letter ASHC: John Druhan papers

14
Five years later, JEA director Edward Rooney reported his satisfaction with “one of the
best college libraries of any of our schools” and with the quality of Spring Hill’s
philosophy program for Jesuit scholastics, but he thought the sodality needed
improvement, as it was going “in fits and starts.” In the 1952 and 1954 reports of the
Province Prefect there are suggestions about making attendance at the weekday Mass
voluntary rather than obligatory, and about designing a new plan for monitoring the
dorms. Prefects were “under a constant strain,” making three room checks each night,
with an additional late-night check when there was town leave, and a morning check on
the weekly Mass day. By 1957 the early check was eliminated and there were no longer
fixed study periods, so that “most boys avail themselves to take off-campus leave until 10
p.m.” and, since many now had their own cars, there was less of the “comradeship
between faculty and students that characterized an older Spring Hill.”

More seriously, the philosophy program for non-Jesuit students, which should have been
the centerpiece of the curriculum, was the department “that most needs improvement.”
Three years later, the visitation reported that the department of philosophy was “in a
deplorable condition of decay,” with sub-standard teaching. The following year the
theology faculty was also identified as very weak, a department “of shreds and patches.”
There was also a need for a more intensive spiritual program. Sunday sermons were
“inappropriate and ill-prepared,” the retreat program was not well planned, and the
sodality had deteriorated into “a rather effete organization, exerting little influence on
campus.”36

Not all these problems were peculiar to Spring Hill College. At its 1947 meeting, the
JEA Commission on Liberal Arts focused on the “low state of the teaching of Religion”
in Jesuit colleges. What should be “the most important part of our college curriculum”
seemed to be problematic across the country. It was resolved to recommend that
Provincials establish full-time departments of religion with a capable Chair in each
college. In 1951 the JEA Institute for College Religion Teachers was held at Holy Cross
College, and in 1953 the Chicago and Missouri Provinces sponsored a conference at
Marquette University, on Teaching College Religion, with Andrew Smith, recently named
as president, representing Spring Hill. In 1962 JEA held a workshop in Los Angeles
addressing the same concern: On Theology And Philosophy As Academic Disciplines
And Their Role In The Religious, Spiritual And Moral Formation Of Students.

The New Orleans Province tried to grapple with these same challenges. In 1958,
following the recommendation of the 1951 JEA Institute for College Religion Teachers,
the theology teachers of the province’s two institutions of higher education, Loyola and
Spring Hill, met with the Province Prefect of Studies. They recommended that theology
department Chairs be given equal authority to any other department chair, that there be a
staff of full-time theology teachers, with plans for doctorally qualified faculty in the
future, and that they have the same faculty-student ratio as other departments. In a
follow-up meeting the next year, they agreed to work towards a unified syllabus for both
Loyola and Spring Hill for the eight-semester program of religion courses. Loyola was
not yet in a position to consider offering a minor in theology, but Spring Hill thought it
might be a possibility. The plan was never implemented. 37
36
ANOP Education Drawer: Rooney, 3/21/1941; D.R. Druhan 11/2-10/1952, 2/20-22/1954, 2/4-
9/1957; Edward Doyle 3/7-10/1960, 1/26-2/1/1961, 12/9-15/1962]
37
ANOP Education Drawer: JEA Comm. Liberal Arts at BC 1/11-12/1947; Marquette conf. 8/31-
9/2-1953; NOP college theology teachers meetings 9/8-9/1958, 2/9/1959; LA Wkshp 8/1962

15
The concerns over mediocrity and the deeper questioning of the whole project of building
a Catholic counter-culture were becoming part of a growing debate among the country’s
Catholic intellectuals. In 1957 American Jesuit theologian Gustave Weigel sharply
criticized scholastic philosophy as it was generally taught in Catholic colleges: “Its
apologetic orientation, predigested packaging, and the indoctrinating methods employed
by teachers obsessed by a general defense-mentality might occasionally produce a facile
debater, but were more likely to turn students against philosophy itself.” Thomas O’Dea,
a Catholic lay professor at Fordham, identified five “basic characteristics of the American
Catholic milieu which inhibit the development of mature intellectual activity”:
formalism, authoritarianism, clericalism, moralism and defensiveness. Just as the
Thomistic revival had reached its high point in the 1950s, “a decline set in that was so
sudden and so steep as to justify calling it a collapse.” 38

Clearly there were strains and failures in the Catholic Revival and in the special role
played in it by Catholic colleges. But it had also given a clear sense of identity and
mission to Catholic higher education. At Spring Hill two issues in particular revealed the
distinctively Catholic culture of the College. Both issues put Spring Hill at odds with
contemporary social movements or political stances, and both brought historic changes to
the college itself: coeducation in 1952 and racial integration in 1954. While integration
was motivated by Catholic social doctrine over against deeply ingrained cultural norms,
coeducation was a triumph of American values over longstanding Catholic teachings.

Coeducation

In his 1928 letter to American Jesuits, Ledochowski noted four concerns about the
Catholicity of their schools, concluding with the issue of coeducation. Already in 1909
permission had been given by Rome for admission of religious women into summer
courses at Marquette University, and since then several other Jesuit schools had followed
suit. Spring Hill first accepted women students in the same way: first in its “extension”
courses, which began in 1932, and then in its summer school, which began in 1934.
[permission denied earlier?? see Yancey]. But in his letter of 1928, Ledochowski pointed
out that these permissions were “merely tolerated for the time being” and should be
discontinued “as soon as other provision can be made” for alternatives. In the high
schools and undergraduate colleges there was to be no question of co-education, since
“the whole idea is disapproved by the Church.” In 1929, Pope Pius XI’s encyclical on
Christian education reiterated the Church’s disapproval:

False also and harmful to Christian education is the so-called method of

"coeducation." This too, by many of its supporters, is founded upon naturalism
and the denial of original sin; but by all, upon a deplorable confusion of ideas
that mistakes a leveling promiscuity and equality, for the legitimate association of
the sexes…These principles, with due regard to time and place, must, in
accordance with Christian prudence, be applied to all schools, particularly in the
most delicate and decisive period of formation, that, namely, of adolescence. 39

38
Gleason: 291 (on Weigel’s essay in Review of Politics, July 1957), 292, 297
39
From Divini Illius Magistri #68

16
Fr. Andrew Smith, the new dean at Spring Hill and prefect of studies for the New Orleans
Province, shared the concern:40

I find a fourth indictment on the heresy side, in modern Pelagianism, a total

disregard in the educational process of Original Sin and its weakening effects.
Naturalism, axiomatic in secular education, has an insidious way of seeping into
our Catholic outlook. Co-education even at the dangerous stage of adolescence is
not only practiced but praised. How does this square with Pius XI’s clear
statement: “False and harmful to Christian education is the so-called method of
co-education?”41

But not all Jesuits were as convinced as Smith. In April 1936, the consultors were asked
to consider a proposal for making Spring Hill coeducational, at least for commuters. 42
The introduction noted that ever since night courses and summer school had been opened
to women, both Jesuits and the general public had asked “why we do not offer our regular
full time courses to women day students as well as to men.” In fact, Fr. Dan O’Connell,
who had been appointed by the general as commisarius for American Jesuit schools, was
in favor of the plan as well. He suggested getting the recommendation of the bishop and
provincial, so that as commisarius he could personally support the proposal during his
upcoming visit to Rome. Moreover, the Jesuits at Seattle College had recently received
permission for coeducation (1934) and “if they of the West have it, why not we of the
South? We have the same reasons.”43

As with Seattle, one of the reasons in favor of coeducation for Spring Hill was the future
existence of the College. In 1935 the high school had closed and as yet there was no plan
to open the philosophy program for Jesuit scholastics: total enrollment dropped from 302
(1934) to 128 (1935). The consultors estimated that 50-75 girls would enroll from the
four local high schools, providing “a substantial increase in our revenue.” Moreover,
there was a “constant threat” that a coeducational Junior College would open in Mobile,
“which would prove disastrous to Spring Hill.” Another reason was the “necessity for it
in Mobile,” a concern shared by the bishop himself, since there was no Catholic college
for women in the entire state or in neighboring states, excluding Louisiana. 44 Finally, it
was thought “that the presence of women would elevate the tone of the College, which
would be reflected in every line of activity, even academic.” The list of all the reasons in
favor of coeducation was followed by a much briefer list, with the reasons against the
proposal. Each of the four consultors was asked to consider all the reasons and submit his
written opinion to the president. They decided in favor of seeking the requisite
permissions.

But despite the support of the bishop and provincial, the recommendation of the president
and his consultors, as well as the direct personal influence of Fr. O’Connell, permission

40
Smith completed his doctorate in English at the University of Chicago in 1934 and became dean
(prefect of studies) at Spring Hill College in 1935, as well as province prefect of college-level studies.
41
Smith, Credo & Confiteor [late 1930s]: 3-4
42
The four house consultors, together with the rector (president), functioned as the board of
trustees, making all major decisions. In 1936 the consultors were Frs. Andy Smith, Theodore Ray, George
McHardy and John Deignan; the rector, John Druhan. “Memoranda for Consultors” [Attachment to House
Consultors minutes?? April 8, 1936]
43
Permission granted provisionally, until no longer necessary: 1931/1934 Seattle. Seattle 1931
night classes (started at noon! Complaints from bishop) 1934 Ledoch. Reluctantly allows it to continue since
otherwise not enough enrollment to meet accreditation standards.
44
.Benedictine nuns in Cullman, Alabama did not began Sacred Heart junior college until 1940.

17
was denied. On July 2, the provincial informed Fr. Druhan that the general insisted that
“we are not to depart from our Institute in order to augment our income…it is not our part
or work to supply a Catholic College for Women. Father General thinks that our situation
would be rather harmed than helped by the taking of coeds.” The provincial goes on to
say that the general’s reasons for denial of permission should not be made public, nor
should there be any further discussion of the matter: “It will be sufficient to say that we
will not have the coeds—as it is not our policy—and leave Father General out of the
picture altogether. Now that the matter has been passed on, Ours should be careful not to
express to externs that they favor this coed plan.” 45

More than fifteen years would pass before permission for coeducation was finally
granted. The Mobile Register praised the decision as “another step forward in Mobile’s
steadily progressing march toward the best that the field of education has to offer” and
recognized the importance of “appeals from the Most Rev. T.J. Toolen, D.D., Bishop of
Mobile,” in securing the necessary approval. 46 Even Andrew Smith, who had just
become president and was among those “who envisaged the prospect not without alarm
for our sacred traditions and studious habits,” gratefully acknowledged Toolen’s support.
He recognized the bishop’s “decisive intervention in behalf of the introduction of co-
education.” In his commencement address, Smith admitted publicly that “none of my
fears were realized” and seemed genuinely pleased that “after 123 years of peace in a
man’s world, co-education came to Spring Hill quietly as a nun in contemplation.” 47

Integration

Tucked into the middle of a rather unremarkable commencement address to the class of
1954, Fr. Smith included one brief, but dramatic paragraph, praising the recent decision
of the Supreme Court, in Brown v. Topeka??, for taking “a historic stand for equal justice
and equal opportunity for all our citizens in the basic field of public education.” And, he
continued, even if the impact on private institutions was not yet spelled out, “it is clearly
the duty of educators, public and private, to hail the decision of May 17, 1954, as a
forward step toward bringing our Constitution, its interpretation and our practice of it,
into line with the Declaration of Independence.” Smith did not exactly announce that
Spring Hill had decided to fully integrate its academic programs in the coming fall, much
less the fact that the first Black applicant had already been accepted, but he made the
stance of the College abundantly clear. 48

It is equally our duty to work loyally, and fearlessly toward such practical
arrangements as will implement the Christian philosophy of race relations and be
in perfect harmony with the spirit and letter of American law, without hysteria or
unnecessary disturbance of any kind. In that duty it goes without saying that this
historic college, always the champion of social justice, stands ready to play its
part together with all its sister colleges dedicated alike to teaching God’s truth
and promoting justice and charity among all mankind.49
45
Walsh to Druhan: July 2, 1936 ASHC, John Druhan papers
46
Mobile Register editorial: March 19, 1952 (p. 4) Toolen in Rome [ohl was there at the time and
remembers??] Permission for coeducation also meant that Jesuit scholastics would no longer be allowed to
teach at Spring Hill for their regency experience.
47
ASHC: Smith, Commencement 1952/3
48
Commencement Address 5/xx/54. Julia Ponquinette accepted 5/7/54 for Fall 1954; by the
beginning of the Fall semester, 12 had applied and 9 were accepted.
49
ANOP: 1954: 6-7

18
Six years earlier, Fr. Pat Donnelly had delivered a far more stirring challenge to the class
of 1948, under the title “World Citizenship and the Unfinished Business of Democracy.”
It was an eloquent statement of the powerful contribution of the Catholic vision to a
healthy American democracy. His starting point was axiomatic for Catholic social
thought: the local community, like the national and international communities, is a living
organism, whose whole “is only as sound and healthy as its member parts. Weakness
anywhere is weakness everywhere…an injustice done to one is a threat to all.”

After warning that “democracy is on trial” in the face of the aggressive expansionism of
Soviet Russia, he pledges the commitment of Spring Hill College to strengthen “the inner
fortress of democracy in our own country—imparting to our people a more practical
living of our democratic Credo.” Donnelly then points out that “it would hardly be
consistent to speak of world citizenship, criticize and denounce Stalin’s Russia and then
lapse into silence where the creed and business of democracy touch us most closely—in
our beloved Southland, in our great State, in our beautiful city.” On the obvious question
of civil rights, he decries the silence of “the citadels of democracy—our great State
Universities—from Virginia to Texas.”

Let Spring Hill College break that silence! Let the College that was the first
institution of higher learning to raise the torch of education in Alabama also light
and lead the way to full democracy in Alabama and the Southland. Civil Rights?
Spring Hill College is for them! For ourselves and for every other citizen,
regardless of creed or color.

Donnelly goes on to denounce the Boswell Amendment to the Alabama constitution as

“an instrument of tyranny.” Passed by the state legislature in 1945 and ratified by the
electorate the next year, it required prospective voters to “understand and explain” any
section of the U.S. Constitution. The Birmingham and Mobile branches of the NAACP
challenged the law in 1948 and it was declared unconstitutional by the federal court the
following year. Donnelly warned his audience that “States’ Rights” have sometimes been
turned into a screen for denying human rights, and in those cases should be termed more
accurately, “States’ Wrongs.”

So too, “a ‘free press’ must not be a term that is employed as a pretext for oppression”
and if a tree is to be judged by its fruits, “the press in the South, and I included Mobile, is
either not free, or at least is not campaigning for human freedom.” Finally, he insists on
yet another political issue: the free and secret ballot for all citizens, “unencumbered and
unrestricted by poll-tax or any other anti-democratic device.” He concludes by pointing
to the “primary role of education as the hand-maid of democracy: it must not only take
the lead in establishing the goal, but it must also help develop and spread the growth of
democracy—the rule of citizens by the citizenry!” 50

Both Donnelly, a native of Augusta, Georgia, and Smith, of Natchez, Mississippi, were
born and raised in the Southland, where widespread resistance to integration would prove
to be stubborn and eventually become violent. Just two months after the Court decision
ordering desegregation of public schools, the first White Citizens Council was formed in
Indianola, Mississippi. WCCs would soon mushroom across the south, and state and
local lawmakers would mobilize to protect the culture of segregation and oppose on all

50
Donnelly, “World Citizenship and the Unfinished Business of Democracy” pamphlet ASHC

19
fronts the Civil Rights movement. Active involvement of the Ku Klux Klan would also
bring a rash of cross burning, bombings and armed resistance. 51

In 1956, eight years after Donnelly’s commencement address, Autherine Lucy, protected
by NAACP escorts, registered at the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa. But after three
days of taunts and threats from white students, the Board of Trustees barred her from
campus. In 1963 the state governor took his symbolic stand to bar the entrance of the first
Black student to successfully enroll at the University. That same year a bomb would kill
five (?) young girls at a Black church in Birmingham, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,
would be confined to the city’s jail for leading a peaceful protest. [fn w details and dates?
Gailliard book reference]

Spring Hill’s two presidents were clearly out of step with the white leadership of
Alabama and the deeply ingrained culture of Southern whites in general. But they were
very much in line with another culture, which had been cultivated with ever greater
insistence by the leadership both of the Roman Catholic Church and the Society of Jesus.
If coeducation was an issue in which the pressures of American culture challenged what
had been the traditions of the Church and the Society of Jesus, racial integration was just
the opposite. Patterns of segregation were deeply entrenched in southern society and
were protected by strongly held cultural traditions as well as a broad network of local and
state legislation. Nationwide, the Second World War was a turning point not only
because of the integration of the armed forces, but also because of the general revulsion
against the racist ideology of the Third Reich.

Within the Roman Catholic Church, for over fifty years a corpus of teachings on the
pressing social issues of the day had been developing. Ever since Leo XIII’s Rerum
Novarum (1891), papal encyclicals and documents of national conferences of bishops,
had wrestled with the creation of an official Catholic response to the labor question and
related issues of the “social order,” in the wake of industrialization and the emergence of
Marxist ideologies. With the rise of National Socialism and its religion of Aryan
supremacy, Pius XI’s Mit Brennender Sorge (1937) added the question of racism to the
agenda of the social order.

In 1939, following the recent mandate of General Congregation 28, American provincials
established the Institute of Social Order (ISO), specifically to study the two burning
issues of labor and race as applied to the United States. 52 That same year, at the National
Social Action Congress in Cleveland, a group of bishops, priests and laymen formed the
Catholic Committee of the South, to address similar issues. But already in 1933, at a
Catholic women’s college in New York, a meeting of the student Catholic Action group
adopted eight resolutions in support of racial justice. The Manhattanville Resolutions
were published in a leaflet of the Brooklyn Catholic Action Council, entitled “All Men
Are Equal: A Brief for the Black Man” (1934). The Resolutions were addressed to all
presidents and deans of Catholic colleges in the United States and would later be adopted
by the National Federation of Catholic College Students.

In 1938, the president of Manhattanville College of the Sacred Heart, Mother Grace
Dammann, RSCJ, was approached by Fr. John LaFarge, SJ, about admission of a Negro
woman. An outspoken promoter of racial justice, LaFarge was founder and chaplain of
51
Smith in Natchez, MS; Donnelly, Augusta, GA; 1st WCC in Indianola, MS, 2 months after
Brown decision: Ellis 49
52
GC 28 (1928), decree 29: For Matters of Greater Moment,

20
the Catholic Interracial Council of New York (and its journal The Interracial Review) and
co-editor for many years of the Jesuit magazine America. Mother Dammann’s response to
alumnae letters of protest over the desegregation, “Principles Versus Prejudices,” was
reprinted in several national publications, including The Interracial Review.53 Thanks to
Dammann’s activism, numerous Catholic colleges throughout the country desegregated,
explicitly in accordance with the principles of Catholic social teaching. 54

In 1943 [date, details: JEA mtg??], at a gathering of more than 200 Jesuits in West Baden,
Indiana, LaFarge joined Daniel Lord, SJ, in urging a greater commitment to social issues,
including racial justice. It was decided to move the Institute for Social Order from New
York to St. Louis University. The following year, despite considerable resistance from
certain quarters of the Jesuit community, St. Louis University ended its policy of
segregation as well. Spring Hill and Loyola, New Orleans were now the only Jesuit
colleges that had not been desegregated.

Two years later, on September 6, 1946, the Society of Jesus called General Congregation
29 to elect a new general and renew Jesuit ministries after the devastation of the recent
war. As noted in its decree On the Social Apostolate, “Among many peoples not only the
Christian social structure but even the foundations upon which the social order ought to
rest have collapsed before a nearly universal onslaught.” It goes on to mandate “that as
soon as possible some center of social action and studies is to be established in each
province or region, if one does not already exist…providing initiative and direction to the
social action of Ours.”55

On December 26, two months after the conclusion of GC 29 (October 23), the New
Orleans Provincial, Harry Crane, convened a three-day meeting at Spring Hill, with 22
Jesuits of the province interested in social action, to discuss the problems of labor and
race relations in the South and to organize a province Institute of Social Order (ISO). A
province social action committee was formed as a result of the meeting. Andrew Smith,
then serving as dean at Spring Hill, insisted that until the race issue was resolved there
could be no resolution of labor problems. In fact, he wanted the Church to take the lead,
rather than being “forced to act by the communist agitators.”

An older Jesuit and former novice master, Anthony Achee, agreed that labor questions
were a serious matter, but emphasized that race relations were “our biggest and most
pressing problem in the South today.” Many Catholics, moreover, “not only do not feel
with the Church in this matter, but are even doctrinally wrong, in that they see nothing
contrary to conscience in subjecting the Negro to injustice merely because he is a Negro.”
As a result, it was decided at the meeting to establish two subcommittees, one on
industrial relations, headed by Fr. Louis Twomey of Loyola, New Orleans and the other
on interracial relations, headed by Fr. Albert S. Foley of Spring Hill. 56

53
Charles S. Padgett, “Without Hysteria” p.179. Anderson, Black, White and Catholic, pp. 14ff;
Resolutions in Appendix B, p.201. Manhattanville College Library Special Collections: Social Action at
Manhattanville virtual archival exhibition (accessed 7/1/11):
www.manhattanville.edu/Library/Research/SpecialCollections/SocialActionatManhattanville/Default.aspx
54
Albert S. Foley, “The Negro and Catholic Higher Education,” The Crisis, vol.64, no.7 (August-
September 1957)
55
GC 29, d. 29: For Matters of Greater Moment,
56
Albert S. Foley, “New Orleans Province ISO,” ISO Bulletin, 4 (March 1947), 4-6: cited in
Anderson, “Black, White And Catholic: Southern Jesuits Confront The Race Question, 1952,” The Catholic
Historical Review vol. XCI, No.3 (July 2005), p.487f.

21
In the following year, the Spring Hill College catalog (1947-48) included a new feature,
the Credo of Spring Hill. Its eleven points applied Catholic social thought to the college’s
mission, including a clear prelude to the coming desegregation: “We are vigorously
opposed to all forms of racism—persecution or intolerance because of race.” 57 On
November 15, 1948, another publication made its debut, Christ’s Blueprint for the South:
A Social Action Bulletin of the New Orleans Province Institute of Social Order, under
Twomey’s direction at Loyola.

Meanwhile in Rome, Fr. Gen. Janssens was deeply committed to getting Jesuit superiors
throughout the world to take seriously the decrees of the last two General Congregations
on involvement in issues of social justice.58 In 1947 he asked that all superiors and the
younger priests reread the decrees, “consider them and meditate upon them. Provincials
should not judge their responsibilities of office to have been fulfilled unless they have
started implementing them.”59

In October 1949, he issued his Instruction on the Social Apostolate, which was seen as a
turning point for Jesuit works around the world. Aware that the recent war had prevented
implementation "in an orderly and persevering manner" of the social policies decreed by
the previous General Congregations, Janssens reiterated the urgency of the whole
Society’s becoming “trained to that sincere and active charity which today is called ‘a
social attitude’ or ‘social-mindedness’… To prevent our Society from justly being
classified with the rich and capitalists, we must direct with utmost zeal many of our
ministries towards the poorer classes, and make sure they are not almost exclusively
conducted among the rich and the cultured.”60

The more progressive Jesuits in the province were encourage and energized by this
growing insistence on the social questions by both the official teaching of the Church and
the leadership of the Society of Jesus. At Spring Hill, Foley organized the Mobile Student
Interracial Union in 1947, a social action group that aimed to foster communication
among Black and white Catholic students. When he started joint meetings of Catholic
war veterans and sodality groups from the three Catholic high schools, Black males and
white females were brought together as social equals. He also arranged a biracial field
trip to the Black seminary in Bay St. Louis, Mississippi. Parents of some of the white
girls began complaining to Archbishop Toolen, who had already warned Foley against
promotion of social mixing between the races, as too incendiary. Toolen insisted that the
Union be disbanded and Foley be removed from the diocese. 61

Foley was sent for graduate studies to St. Louis University, where he witnessed the
desegregation of Catholic schools and parishes by Archbishop Joseph Ritter that same
year. Foley’s impetuosity was an embarrassment for the president, Pat Donnelly, but he
was still firmly committed to racial justice. In 1948, after his commencement address

57
The Credo of Spring Hill was included at the beginning of the annual college catalog, from 1947
until 1962, when the catalog was given a new format and the content thoroughly revised.
58
GC 28 (1938), d. 29 and GC 29 (1946), d.29: ARSI ??. Both decrees are also reprinted in
Promotio Iustitiae 66 (February 1997)
59
De ministeriis nostris: Acta Romana 11:3 (1947), n.8. Also reprinted in Promotio Iustitiae 73
(May 2000), p.9
60
Michael Czerny, S.J. and Paolo Foglizzo, S.J., “The Social Apostolate In The Twentieth Century,”
Promotio Iustitiae 73 (May 2000), p.10. Full text of Instruction on the Social Apostolate (De Apostolatu
Sociali) in ARSI ???
61
Carol Ellis, “The Tragedy Of The White Moderate…”, p.24, based on Foley’s memoirs. Padgett,
“Without Hysteria,” p.179.

22
calling for the promotion of civil rights, Donnelly proposed desegregation of all academic
programs for the next fall semester. His consultors, who functioned as the Board of
Trustees, did not think the time was ripe, and so, as a first step, he simply “authorized the
admission of colored nuns to the summer session and extension courses.” 62

At Loyola, Joseph Fichter, a newly arrived Jesuit professor of sociology, had already
conceived a plan for full integration of the university by 1948. Neither the president nor
the consultors were prepared to act with such haste, but in 1948 Fichter did organize the
Southeast Regional Interracial Commission. Under the auspices of the National
Federation of Catholic College Students, it was comprised of students from the four
Catholic colleges in New Orleans, including Xavier, the nation’s only Black Catholic
university. It later expanded to include Sacred Heart College in Grand Coteau, Louisiana
and Spring Hill in Alabama. In 1949 Fichter also founded an interracial group of Catholic
adults, the Commission on Human Rights, in connection with the Catholic Committee of
the South. Both groups aimed to bring together Black and white Catholics to further the
cause of racial justice.63

It soon became evident, however, that not everyone was on board. Loyola and Spring Hill
were not just the only Jesuit colleges in the country that had not yet integrated; they were
also the only ones in the former Confederate states, where segregation was not only
enforced by an entire system of legislation, but also deeply embedded in social structures
and popular cultural prejudice. Many of the Jesuits were wary of stirring up a hornets’
nest of resistance by moving too quickly towards integration. At Loyola, several were
quite uncomfortable with the activities of Fichter’s two interracial groups and sent
complaints to the president and the provincial. A few were actually in favor of
maintaining segregation. Martin Burke, a Jesuit professor of philosophy, taught in his
classes that segregation was morally justifiable and made public statements in favor of
Strom Thurmond, the States’ Rights presidential candidate in 1948. 64

In January 1950, two months after promulgation of the general’s Instruction on the Social
Apostolate, the provincial called a meeting of his consultors to discuss the letter and its
application to the New Orleans Province. The division among Jesuits, especially in regard
to the race question, was becoming more evident and clearly needed to be addressed.
Divisions at the Jesuit community of Loyola University were particularly strident. While
a handful of Jesuits in the province openly opposed integration, the great majority were in
favor, but had serious differences over timing. It was recommended that an official
statement of policy on interracial issues be drafted and sent to the whole province. 65

While Fichter pressed for at least integrating Loyola’s Law School, disagreements over
timing continued. In the fall of 1950, Loyola’s president allowed selective integration: in
Saturday and evening classes and in Twomey’s Institute of Industrial Relations, a non-
credit program for adults. That same semester the Law School at Louisiana State was
forcibly integrated, by court order. Not until 1952, after the arrival of Pat Donnelly as the
new president and the completion of the province meeting on interracial policy, would
Loyola’s Law School accept its first two African American applicants (when there were
already nearly 100 at the LSU Law School).
62
Foley, “Stages”. Also see Padgett, “Without Hysteria,” 180: interview with Robert Zietz
2/14/1998
63
Anderson, Black, White, and Catholic: New Orleans Interracialism 1947-1956, 14ff.
64
Ibid., 36f.
65
Ibid., 80-82.

23
At Spring Hill, before leaving for his new post at Loyola, Donnelly had once again
proposed accepting Black applicants in March 1952, but the consultors were still
opposed, in view of the recent decision to admit women students. Smith, who was named
to succeed Donnelly as president, recommended acceptance of two Negro applicants to
the evening division at the September meeting of the consultors, and “After some
discussion it was thought advisable to accept [them] as a test case or experiment.” 66

Meanwhile, in August 1950 William Crandell had been moved from Loyola to become
the new provincial. He knew firsthand the problem of the growing tensions among Jesuits
over the race question and continued to discuss with his consultors the need for a meeting
to craft a formal statement of policy, as had been recommended to his predecessor. When
the consultors agreed that “a carefully arranged program” should be thought out, in order
to make for a constructive province-wide meeting, Crandell wrote the general that

…our minds are divided, our teachings are different, our approaches various. We
are confused and so are our students… it is time for us to formulate a definite
Province policy in this mater… and vigorously resist any departure from [it]. 67

With the general’s approval, preparations began. Between January and July 1952 the
province social action committee, chaired by Spring Hill’s Andrew Smith, held nine
meetings to prepare the agenda and materials. On August 28, 1952, thirty-six Jesuits met
for two days at the novitiate in Grand Coteau, Louisiana. Their mandate was to articulate
a province policy on interracial relations, so that “Southern Jesuits, as far as possible, be
united in their thinking and acting relative to such an enormously important matter.” 68
The next month, Smith was designated by the provincial to prepare an initial draft of the
official policy statement, based on the meeting.

Smith completed his work by November 1952, when the provincial sent copies to several
theologians, for their comments. Finally, in January 1954 the statement was sent to
Rome, for review and approval by the general. In June, Janssens returned the draft with
several changes recommended by his staff, in order to clarify and strengthen the
language. In August, Smith and David Druhan (another former president of Spring Hill)
were appointed to complete the final editing. On September 9, 1954, feast of St. Peter
Claver, Jesuit apostle to the slaves of Colombia, the statement was formally promulgated
to the Jesuits of the New Orleans Province. 69

The new interracial policy was issued as a six-page, single-spaced letter from the
provincial to all Jesuits of the New Orleans Province. After citing the “bitter and
vigorous opposition to any attempt to implement” the Supreme Court decision against
segregation in public schools, it goes on to note that even among Jesuits “the question of
interracial relations has produced a cleavage of opinion, not indeed about principles, but
66
Anderson: 59,80,93. The application, received in June, was not acted upon until September,
immediately following the province meeting on an official policy for integration: Anderson 102. Padgett
(diss. p.20?; “Without Hysteria” p. 182). HC 3/??/1952, 9/11/1952
67
Crandell to Janssesn: 11/20/1951, NOP files, ARSI and Consultors’ minutes, 6/18/1951, ANOP:
both cited in Anderson: 101
68
.Christ’s Blueprint for the South: A Social Action Bulletin of the New Orleans Province Institute
of Social Order, September 30, 1954, Special Service edition, with full text of the policy statement and the
Provincial’s cover letter, dated September 9. As explained in the Provincial’s cover letter, “some 40 Fathers”
were invited, but only 36 were able to participate in all sessions.
69
Anderson, “BWC”: 498-500

24
about methods and their timing, which bids fair to be a source of disunity, in not of
scandal.” A summary of general principles of social morality is followed by the
conclusion that “by authoritative Catholic teaching, there can be no doubt that the
practice of race segregation in this country all too often violates many of the fundamental
rights of the Negro and, to that extent at least, is unjust and, hence, seriously sinful.”

While explicitly stating that “we must say that race segregation, based solely on race, is
seriously immoral and, therefore, may not be approved by a Catholic,” the letter also
recognizes that it may be allowable, “because of circumstances over which we have no
control, to omit or defer certain actions which would be obligatory in a properly adjusted
social order.” After the statement of principles, practical applications are given for each
area of Jesuit ministries, beginning with higher education, where “our principles will be
most fully elaborated and constantly discussed…precisely here that the greatest pressure
will be felt for positive action.” The ultimate objective is stated unequivocally as
“complete equality in educational opportunity, without distinction between whites and
Negroes.” In preparation for this goal, “faculty, students, alumni and parent clubs should
be thoroughly imbued with the Catholic principles on race relations.” Actual decisions in
every step of implementation are to be made by the rector/president and his consultors,
with approval of the provincial and local bishop.

The letter concludes by calling for “a minimum of formal publicity…We do not want
headlines, but results. The more casual we can be in matters like this, the greater seems to
be the prospect of solid achievement.” The provincial in fact insisted that the text of the
policy was to be restricted to Jesuits only. He allowed it to be made available to Jesuits in
other provinces, but only “under the strict condition that the letter is reserved for the use
of OURS ONLY.”70 When Smith, in his commencement address of May 1954, pledged
that Spring Hill would implement “the Christian philosophy of race… without
hysteria or unnecessary disturbance of any kind,” he was echoing the province
policy statement, which of course he himself had drafted. In May, the policy had
not yet been promulgated, but at least Smith and the other participants of the 1952
meeting were well aware of its basic thrust.

In 1952 the Springhillian carried a front page headline story on the change to
coeducation, but in 1954 there was never any mention of desegregation in the student
paper, nor was there any announcement made at student orientation or faculty meetings.
Smith allowed no interviews on the subject and no reporters on campus. One reporter
conducted an interview with students over a pay phone, then encouraged them to write an
article for Collier’s Magazine. Smith found out and vetoed the project, keeping a “cloak
of invisibility” over Spring Hill’s desegregation.

The cloak was not lifted until the Fall 1991 issue of the Spring Hill Magazine carried a
tribute to Fannie Mae Motley. In May 1956, when Motley became the College’s first
African-American graduate, the historic event was quietly noted in the Mobile Press,
New York Times, Jet and Time magazines, but nothing was highlighted in campus
publications. In fact, for the next three decades, College chronologies always included the
beginnings of coeducation in 1952, but never mentioned the desegregation of 1954. The
historic decision was not publicly celebrated until 50 years later, with a gala weekend of
events, called “Lighting & Leading the Way.”71

70
Blueprint vol.VII no.1 (September 1954): p.2

25
Men like Crandell, Donnelly and Smith were fully aware that racial prejudice was deeply
rooted in southern culture and unquestioningly embraced by the great majority of white
Catholics as well as Protestants. The strategy of “results, not headlines” was a conscious
choice for pushing the envelope, but avoiding outright confrontation. In the beginning,
the process of integration at Spring Hill seemed to go almost without a hitch. In the first
year there were nine Negro students out of a total enrollment of 780. By the second year
there were 17 and by 1956, about 40.

In 1955 Spring Hill played Xavier of Cincinnati, in what was Mobile’s first interracial
basketball game. Negro and white students also traveled together to New Orleans, for the
annual meetings of the Southeast Regional Interracial Commission, and to Montgomery,
for the Alabama Council on Human Relations.72 Like the federal military base in town,
the campus was a world of its own, with integrated classes, clubs, athletics, band and
cafeteria. And even though interracial friendships were sometimes made, off campus
became awkward, with “kids that you could sit next to in class but couldn’t sit next to on
the bus.”73

But soon, the backlash began and eventually became violent. When a white male asked a
“good-looking colored girl” to dance,, rumors started circulating around Mobile that at
Spring Hill “the Negro boys are always dancing with the white girls.” One of the local
alumni complained that after all the hard work to make the college a high-class, socially
respectable school, “now the administration hits us across the face with this bull-whip!” 74
In the spring of 1955, Foley brought a mixed group of students to a sociological meeting
in New Orleans, stopping along the way to eat at a restaurant in Mississippi. When they
walked in, all the patrons froze and the owner refused service to the group. Foley, in his
black suit and Roman collar, refused to leave, until they were reluctantly seated and
served. By this time the two young Black women were “frightened to death” to say the
least. Only a few months later, in Money, Mississippi, 14-year old Emmet Till would be
brutally murdered for allegedly flirting with the white of the local grocery store. 75

In the fall of 1956, as cross burnings were spreading across Mobile, Foley and Smith
joined the mayor’s biracial committee. Foley began organizing coalitions to enforce the
city ordinance against cross burnings and also offered class credit to white male students
who would spy on Klan meetings and record license-plate numbers of their parked cars.
Two freshmen from Brooklyn recall driving with Foley to a meeting held in a small
church in Prichard, just north of Mobile. As they were taking down the license-plates,
armed Klansmen noticed them. Foley and the students sped off, but the men followed in
hot pursuit, swinging a noose outside the window. When Foley commented, “I hope they
do maul us, then we’ll have something on them,” one student whispered to the other,
“What about us?”76

The most famous incident took place on the night of January 21, 1957. Two weeks
earlier, Foley had placed a full-page ad in the Mobile paper, calling for a curb on the
Klan, after a bomb went off in the yard of a local Negro family. In retaliation, a dozen
carloads of Klansmen stealthily entered campus and began preparing a cross burning. But
71
Padgett diss.: 54f, 91-95, 150 (?). Gala Celebration Weekend: Feb. 24-26, 2005. McDermott,
“Quiet Change”, 10-17
72
Foley Report 1955
73
Padgett, “A Study in Black and White,” p.37; “KKK,” p.9
74
Foley Report, p. 3
75
Padgett, KKK p.11
76
Janeroux (Whelehan) interview

26
since it was final exam week, all the students were awake studying and came streaming
out of both ends of Mobile Hall with bricks and shouts. The Klan fled, the students took
the unburned cross as a trophy and four of them drove downtown and threw a brick
through the window of the Klan leader’s shop. The Klan returned the next night, burning
a cross outside the gate of the College, but the next morning, students hung a Klansman
in effigy, with a sign, “KKKers are Chicken.” A photograph of the effigy made the front
page of the Mobile Press and was picked up by Time magazine and the Chicago
Tribune.77

As president, Smith issued an official statement, which tried to downplay the event: “We
naturally regret this incident but we should not exaggerate its importance.” Students,
however, were more galvanized than ever by the attacks. A white alumnus from Baton
Rouge recalled the reaction of his classmates as his “proudest moment at the Hill.” The
firsthand experience of “racial and religious bigotry made me realize how important the
Jesuit decision was to integrate our College.” A black alumnus remembered feeling, from
that point on, “a little safer about being at the Hill, because the student body itself reacted
to these outsiders coming on campus, telling us what we could and couldn’t do.” 78

But the growing violence and increasingly vocal resistance to integration also made the
College leadership more and more cautious. In Mobile, both public and parochial schools
were refusing to cooperate with desegregation. In New Orleans, Archbishop Joseph
Rummell prepared a pastoral letter on the immorality of racial segregation, based on the
province policy statement of the New Orleans Jesuits, and had it read from the pulpit of
every church on Sunday, February 19, 1956.79 But determined and heated resistance to his
policy of integration of churches and schools would continue, eventually leading to the
public excommunication of political boss Leander Perez.

In September 1957 the professional fund raiser, who had been hired to guide the $1
million dollar campaign, warned of the “probable failure” of the drive at this time, due to
the integration issue.80 The following year, Hilton Rivet, the Jesuit dean of students,
sought approval to sponsor a YMCA conference on racial tensions in the south, with
representatives from 8 colleges in Alabama and 8 in Mississippi. The consultors refused
his request, since it would lead to negative publicity and adversely affect the capital
campaign. One large gift of $25,000 was raised, but the campaign director resigned, and
the drive was quietly laid to rest.81

In 1962, when Foley sent out a questionnaire on equal treatment of both races in the local
courts and by local law enforcement, the president, Fr. Crandell, received three letters of
complaint from lawyers and the Mobile Alumni Board. After “discussing the matter
thoroughly” with his consultors, he decided that the college would uphold the project of
the sociology department (and funded by the American Philosophical Association), but
that any future questionnaires to be used locally “must be cleared directly with the
President.”82

77
Jim McDermott, “A Professor, …”: p. 16
78
Padget, KKK, p.12
79
Anderson, BWC: 114
80
1957 HC 3/25
81
HC 1958: 3/30; 4/1. McDermott, ibid.: p.17
82
HC 7/13/62

27
The final step in the integration of Spring Hill did not take place until 1965. When Curtis
Boddie entered the College in the fall of 1963, he was given lodging with a black family
off campus, since residence halls were still segregated. After making friends and getting
more involved in campus life, he asked to be allowed to live in on campus. In February of
1965, members of the sodality also petitioned on his behalf, but were outright refused.
Crandell, fearing a repetition of the cross burnings and a continued decrease in much-
needed financial support, was adamant. Boddie then wrote a 3-page letter to President
Lyndon Johnson, citing the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In April 1965, after the letter came
to the attention of the administration, Boddie was offered a room in Mobile Hall for the
next semester. At the April meeting of the consultors, housing was also approved for a
Negro co-ed, since “no one could see why any distinction should be made between
accepting men or women.”83

Writing from the jail in Birmingham, just a few months before his famous I Have A
Dream speech in Washington, D.C., Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. pointed to the integration
of Spring Hill College as one of the few signs of progress amidst massive resistance to
the movement for civil rights.84 Spring Hill’s commitment to integration, despite the
resistance even of many Jesuits at the college and throughout the province, gave eloquent
testimony to the impact of Catholic doctrine in challenging the prevailing social norms.
On the other hand, the steady refusal by the Society’s leadership in Rome to approve
coeducation in American Jesuit colleges, on grounds of Catholic moral teaching, is an
equally eloquent testimony to the impact of American culture on Catholic teaching. What
Spring Hill College requested in 1936 and was finally granted in 1952 is now common
practice in Catholic higher education around the world.

83
HC 4/3/1965; Spring Hill Alumni Magazine, Spring 2005, p.22. Boddie to Johnason (February
1965): Archives of Lyndon Baines Johnson Library (Austin, Texas), courtesy of Padgett.
84
“Letter from Birmingham Jail,” ??

28