Remarks of President William G. Durden
to the Dickinson School of Law Board of Governors
Friday, October 15, 2004

Introduction

I want to thank the Board of Governors for inviting me to talk with you today about a proposal that has recently surfaced to establish a closer and more formal relationship between Dickinson College and the Dickinson School of Law. At the outset, let me emphasize that Dickinson College has always had a special, albeit unofficial relationship with the Dickinson School of Law. It is an association that is the product of a shared and proud heritage that dates back to the early years of our nation's democracy. Our institutions also share an interest in looking to the future, positioning ourselves for the challenging world of the 21st century. Regardless of the outcome of these discussions, I firmly believe that it is in the best interest of both of our institutions to explore fully a range of cooperative arrangements that will position the schools individually-and in partnership-to take full advantage of the range of academic and intellectual opportunities that a global society presents.

That said, let me turn my attention to the possibility of entering into a formal arrangement that would join Dickinson College with the Dickinson School of Law. It is important to understand that this proposal is of very recent origin and that the College has an obligation to its numerous constituencies-as well as those of the Dickinson School of Law-to investigate all aspects of such an arrangement with extreme thoroughness and with forthright, if not brutal, honesty.

This discussion about a joint future for our institutions must be candid and weigh the pros and cons for each institution equally. We must discover if there is a viable, mutual course of action available to us. What is good for the Dickinson School of Law must be good for Dickinson College; and what is good for Dickinson College must be good for the Dickinson School of Law. There must be no compromise on this fundamental principle.

I am fully aware that the last year has been an exceptionally tumultuous one for Dickinson School of Law students, faculty and its Board of Governors. I am extremely sensitive to the fact that many of you yearn for clarity about the future of your school and that its reputation and academic and fiscal health remain at stake as these deliberations occur. Those of you who know me, know that I like to get things done; I like to see results-good results upon which one can build lasting excellence and accomplishment. And I promise you that I will do all that I can to move this process along as rapidly as is prudent.

That said, I will consider the results only when I am confident that we have fully explored and assessed all aspects of a possible cooperative arrangement and that there are strong positive indicators that a more formal relationship between Dickinson College and the Dickinson School of Law is the right path for both institutions. We should demand no less for our students, our faculty, our alumni and, in fact, all of the citizens of Central Pennsylvania who have such a vested interest in retaining and enhancing one of the oldest law schools in the nation.

Dickinson College - A Five-Year Retrospective

I'd like to take a few moments and tell you a little bit about my past five years as President of Dickinson College and the challenges I faced when I took this position. These challenges are, in my judgment, not unlike many of those facing the Dickinson School of Law today. The approach I have taken with the College will give you insight into the way I am starting to think about a possible shared future for our institutions, if we indeed advance to that point.

When I arrived at Dickinson College, I found an institution with a wonderful sense of community and a very capable and dedicated-although frustrated-faculty. During the late 1980s and 1990s, the College had drifted. It had lost its distinctiveness; it was losing ground in comparison with its traditional peer institutions in both reputation and resources. It had in fact slipped out of the top-tier of national liberal arts colleges as assessed by the much disputed, yet influential rankings of U.S. News & World Report. Dickinson had become complacent. It was content to be regarded as a good regional liberal arts college that was frequently the "safety school" for many students. Additionally, the College was in considerable self denial about its finances, its reputation, and the effectiveness of its various administrative offices.

Equally important, it had forgotten what an asset a distinctive historic legacy can be. One of the oldest liberal arts colleges in the country and the first to be created at the close of the American Revolution, Dickinson had lost sight of the powerful and still applicable historic vision of its founder, Dr. Benjamin Rush. It is a vision that not only distinguishes the College from its peers, but a vision that has proved remarkably prescient in providing guidance as Dickinson charts its course for the 21st century. The College had also failed to appreciate the distinctiveness and advantage of its physical location-Carlisle, Pa.-a traditional crossroads for America and the world.

As an alumnus of the College, I was outraged by this complacency. And I wasn't alone. The alumni body as a whole was unengaged with the life of the College. Where peer institutions were actively utilizing their alumni network to connect alumni to faculty, students and each other, ours was not in any comprehensive way. My major task when I arrived as president was to renew a sense of purpose, pride and prestige in the entire Dickinson community-its alumni, students, Board of Trustees, faculty and staff. One of the first things I did was to initiate a Strategic Planning Process. The College had gone through more than a decade of planning exercises with no tangible results, and there were plenty of skeptics who said it couldn't be done.

Within six months, we had developed a remarkable document with extensive input and buy-in from the entire College community. This plan has served as our blueprint for the past five years and we are in the process of updating it for the next five.

What did this document do? First, it provided a vehicle around which we could begin to have productive and honest discussions about the College and to chart a strategic course of action. The document allowed us to articulate Dickinson's mission and to describe how we are distinctive from, and therefore, competitive with, America's most traditionally prestigious colleges and universities. It allowed us to set specific goals, and where appropriate, to measure key performance indicators that have given us a concrete barometer of our progress. The plan, in short, has given us a shared sense of purpose. It gave us incentive, aspirations, ambition and a road map to guide us forward. It provided the College with a leadership story in which others-outstanding students and faculty-wished to envision themselves, defining their prestige and accomplishment.

The singular and focused determination of a community willing to pull together in a common effort is, in my judgment, essential for any institution that hopes to turn itself around and make productive advances in a relatively short period of time. With the Strategic Plan in place, Dickinson College has made remarkable strides in the past five years. I recognize that our discussion today is not about Dickinson College, but the future of the Law School, and I do not want to dwell on the College's record. Allow me, however, to point to a few accomplishments that I believe are of particular relevance to some of the current challenges the Law School is facing, as I understand them.

Fundraising: In the past five years, our fundraising efforts-both in terms of total giving and participation-have skyrocketed, even during a major national economic downturn. For example, this year the College received $30 million in contributions-an amount placing us well within reach of what is achieved by America's most prestigious liberal arts colleges. This figure represents an all-time record in giving in a single year. Alumni giving, which was flat at 38 percent throughout the 1990s, reached the 43 percent mark. The Dickinson Fund, the College's annual fund, was up 23 percent from $4.4 million in FY2003 to $5.4 million in FY2004. About $7 million was received as cash gifts to the endowment. By comparison, prior to 1999, the College averaged new gifts to the endowment of about $3 million per year. And finally, before 1999, the College had absolutely no endowed chairs that were supported by at least $1 million from single external donors. We now have more than seven in just a short period of time. In the past, we had not been reaching out effectively to our alumni and supporters. We found that when we had a distinctive vision to convey and when we could impart a sense of ownership to our alumni, trustees and friends, they responded willingly and generously.

Enrollment: The College had not kept up sufficiently with new trends and strategies in admissions during the 1990s. Under the direction of an enrollment management team, we have worked miracles in terms of the number of applications we are attracting and in our acceptance and discount rates. We have secured these advances by greatly enhancing the quality and competitiveness of our student body without abandoning our historic commitment to provide access to first-generation college students and others who might not have the financial means to attend Dickinson. This fall, for example, 22 percent of our incoming first-year students-as defined by father or mother-are the first in their families to attend college, and one in five students-20 percent-is either a student of color or an international student. Fifteen percent are students of color, and five percent are international students. These numbers are expected to grow.

Finances and Endowment: When I became president, the College was running deficit budgets and had consumed its reserves. Five years later-and, I might add again, under less than stellar national economic conditions-we have balanced our budget, are running annual surpluses and have an endowment that recently hit an all-time high of $200 million. This past year Dickinson College achieved a 19.3 percent yield on its endowment-a figure higher than that of MIT, the University of Pennsylvania, Cornell and Stanford. This achievement is the result of the constant vigilance and creative effort of our Board's Investment Committee-again, the product of developing a clear strategic vision that has the support of all key institutional constituencies.

Rankings and Prestige: These are the most elusive and vexing measures for any higher education institution. We decry them, we criticize them-and yet we know that they are, at some level, important. In the past five years, Dickinson College has risen seven slots in the US News & World Report rankings-we are well into the top tier and rising. At the same time, we have been ranked by three different associations as being among the top-five colleges and universities in terms of the strength of our global education program. We were recently listed in the October 2004 Atlantic Monthly among a prestigious group of colleges and universities that have joined the top 25 schools that students should look at for an education of exceptional quality. The University of Pennsylvania and Swarthmore were Pennsylvania institutions cited among the top 25 and the only other colleges and universities listed in the additional sphere of world-class prestige were Haverford College, Bryn Mawr College, Bucknell University, Carnegie Mellon University, and Dickinson College. And we were also cited by University Business as one of two institutions that is "getting it right" in terms of balancing the market and their commitment to academic excellence. NYU was the other institution.

In addition, the recent success of Dickinson College warranted a separate chapter in a recently published book from the Harvard University Press entitled, Shakespeare, Einstein, and the Bottomline, by David Kirp of UC-Berkeley. Joining us with separate chapters were USC, the University of Chicago, NYU, and the University of Virginia. Our story, our success, in other words, is part of a national recognition and awareness. And with that recognition will come greater acclaim, more student applicants, more resources and ultimately, even greater prestige. We are, in other words, in the process of creating a cycle of success that will repeat itself many times over.

Perhaps one of the most personally gratifying, but less quantifiable, results is the renewed sense of alumni pride in the college. It is certainly evident in our fundraising results, but also in increased participation in events both on and off campus and in increased volunteerism such as recruiting prospective students, assisting current students with career decisions, offering internships and developing regional alumni networks around the country and the globe. They are engaged!

I cite these examples to demonstrate what can be achieved in a short period of time if an institution pulls together with a shared sense of purpose and conviction. This is the experience and approach I would also bring and carry forward if the College and the Law School decide upon a more formal arrangement. Dickinson College knows precisely how to achieve, in a relatively short period of time, true prestige and acclaim as an institution of higher education. Our record and the opinions of unrelated third-party sources speak for themselves. I suggest that the Dickinson School of Law-even today, maybe especially today-would profit from what we know how to do-move a higher education institution to a more prestigious, higher-profile position. That said, Dickinson College knows that certain conditions must be present to permit us to advance an educational institution. We must confirm, as soon as possible, that they exist in the case of THE Dickinson School of Law. These conditions target finances, academics, culture (the faculty and staff working culture, that is). Further conditions involve issues of governance and trust-that is, we must determine early on the degree to which the various Dickinson School of Law constituencies trust Dickinson College as a partner in this venture.

A Vision for a Dickinson College/Dickinson School of Law Relationship

What is my vision for a Dickinson School of Law which would have a more formal and established relationship with Dickinson College? How would the missions of these two institutions fit together and what are the challenges we would face in realizing such an arrangement?

You should know that I possess first and foremost a vision of Carlisle as a center for the study of leadership in the United States and for the world. The United States Army War College, Dickinson College, and the Dickinson School of Law all exist within a modest geographical area and can combine to offer lessons for substantive leadership. Carlisle must move in the future to embrace fully this historic and natural asset. It is our gift, and to date, we have not advanced it as robustly as we might.

In my judgment, the missions of our two Dickinsons are, and should be, extremely compatible. Our institutions come from the same historic wellspring. Dickinson College was the first higher education institution to be established in our newly recognized nation and it was created by Dr. Benjamin Rush specifically to prepare the citizens and leaders who would ensure the success of the new democratic experiment.

The study of law was both a suggested area of study for Dr. Rush in a distinctively American university education and a co-curricular activity. Rush intended the study of the laws of newly formed democracy to be essential to a liberal education and the creation of citizen leaders. Should we be surprised that, a few decades later, it was a former Dickinson student, Judge John Reed, who proposed to the College trustees that they create one of the first law schools in the country to train graduates to enter the growing legal profession?

Dickinson School of Law, whether consciously or not, has followed in this tradition for the past 170 years. I am struck by how prominently and proudly the School lists those graduates who have gone on to distinguished careers in public service. I was equally struck by the fact that it was the potential loss of opportunity for public service externships and practical legal experience that was most loudly decried when the relocation of the Law School to State College was under discussion.

This commitment to public service and a practical legal education has deep roots within the fabric of the Dickinson School of Law and I believe that we should all recommit proudly to this historic mission. It is an appropriate one for the 21st century. I firmly maintain that this historic legacy should serve as the foundation for a new contemporary vision for the Dickinson School of Law, one that is creatively and effectively adapted to the challenges of legal leadership in a complex global society. Allow me to elaborate.

When I think of the Dickinson School of Law ten years from now, I envision a small, highly distinctive law school that has developed creative partnerships with a number of higher education institutions around the world and which occupies a special niche in a global world. We are already, by the way, in discussion with several historically prestigious major research universities, such as Johns Hopkins, to explore joint advanced degree programs for Dickinson School of Law students. At Hopkins, in particular, we are targeting initially the areas of biotechnology and biosecurity- fields of study that present 21st-century law students with immense ethical and legal challenges and possibilities. Additional areas of exploration for joint-degree programs include finance, public health, education, and international studies. This envisioned Dickinson School of Law would have the following defining characteristics:

The Dickinson School of Law would remain true to its historic beginnings and, therefore, maintain as a primary focus the tradition of preparing practicing lawyers for service in our country's legal and judicial system. While this training-like the liberal arts education offered by Dickinson College-would be ultimately "useful," it would be based on a rigorous curriculum that balances scholarship and practical application.

Essential to this vision is a broadening of the geographical sphere within which the School perceives itself, in terms of the locations from which it draws its students and, more important, the locales in which it expects its graduates to serve. When Benjamin Rush founded Dickinson College, he purposely located it so the students could walk the two short blocks to the county courthouse to observe democracy at work. In a contemporary world, those two blocks now circumvent the globe.

Graduates of both the College and the Law School must have the opportunity to observe, train, intern and operate in a local, national and global context. And I envision leveraging our joint alumni networks to help us achieve this. The best phrase to capture concisely our vision for the School of Law is "Regional Civility, Global Spirit."

In my judgment, neither the College nor the Law School has taken adequate advantage of our proximity to Harrisburg and Washington (not to mention of Carlisle as a county seat). These cities are laboratories of legal and public service opportunity and ripe for developing creative partnerships with both the public and private sector. Developing joint initiatives that maximize our easy access to these centers of government could serve as highly distinguishing characteristics of both a Dickinson College and Dickinson School of Law education. Dickinson College, by the way, is most favorably positioned to influence the Law School's approach to Washington, DC. Last spring, for example, the College was cited by the Washington Center as the leading college or university in the country for engaging its students in national government.

Fortunately, there is a far more extensive global network through which the Law School could begin to expand its interest in international law and thus, advance beyond its current focus which is almost exclusively on Europe. As I mentioned earlier, Dickinson College is now routinely listed among the top five colleges and universities in the country for the excellence of its global education program. The College itself operates 12 programs on six continents and has well-established relationships with foreign universities that could be leveraged for the benefit of the Law School. Frankly, I have been perplexed as to why our institutions have not found a better way to cooperate in our global programming in the past.

It is not only Dickinson's global reach, but also its comprehensive approach to international education that, I believe, would be of greatest benefit to the School of Law. As NAFSA, Association of International Educators, wrote when it chose Dickinson as America's outstanding liberal arts college in global education, "… no college is more internationally minded than Dickinson College." We offer instruction in 12 foreign languages, have developed a highly innovative program in International Business and Management and recently received a $531,000 grant to support a new faculty position in Asian Law and Culture that will expose our students to the study of Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Vietnamese law.

Think of the collaborative possibilities for students at the Dickinson School of Law! These students could continue their language studies at Dickinson and engage in joint curricular ventures that will allow them to continue to learn about the cultures and legal systems in other countries. Most important, law students and law faculty could tap into the worldwide network that Dickinson has created to explore new relationships and new opportunities that would greatly deepen and enhance the international law experience. We would demand of Dickinson School of Law and its faculty and students what we now advance for the College community-all intellectual inquiry regardless of subject should be placed in the context of global knowledge and awareness.

As we look at those forces that will shape the 21st century and to which we, as educators, must respond, the blurring of distinctions among traditional disciplines and the creation of new ones is clearly emerging as a dominant trend. It is, perhaps, most noticeable among the sciences, but increasingly in those areas where science and medicine tend to intersect issues of philosophy, religion and psychology, raising nettlesome questions of ethics, privacy and individual rights.

At Dickinson College, encouraging students to "connect the dots" among traditional and emerging disciplines has been a persistent theme. Currently, 25 percent of our majors are considered interdisciplinary and, in fact the two fastest growing majors are interdisciplinary-Biochemistry/Molecular Biology and International Business and Management-soon to be surpassed by two other interdisciplinary majors-Neuroscience and Law and Policy. We are also well underway with plans to construct new science facilities that will promote communication across seemingly disparate academic concentrations.

One of the arguments that was frequently presented for moving the Law School to State College was to give students the opportunity to engage in joint program opportunities that involved disciplines outside the traditional legal curriculum. I would argue that, additionally, there is ample opportunity right here in Carlisle. I can envision, for example, creating a number of certificate concentration programs at the College that will allow prospective lawyers to participate in discussions that probe the intersections that arise as disciplines collide, thereby adding a rich and, perhaps, unique liberal arts dimension to their legal training. Existing areas of concentration include bioinformatics, nanotechnology, neuroscience, environmental sciences, East Asian law and society, community studies, and education. I recognize, of course, that law students will require access to more advanced interdisciplinary training and, as I stated previously, we are already exploring the idea of joint initiatives with nearby highly prestigious research universities.

The final characteristic that I believe should distinguish Dickinson School of Law-just as it has distinguished Dickinson College-is a continuing commitment to access for students. Dickinson College has had a long-standing commitment to provide access to a liberal arts education for first-generation college students. I am one of those students. In the increasingly diverse world of the 21st century, however, we must redouble our efforts to attract students from a wide variety of backgrounds and cultures. Our aspiration (and actual success) at the College to increase dramatically not only the number of students of color and international students, but to enroll students of the highest academic quality, is also shared by Dickinson School of Law. As we all know, the world's most outstanding students will only attend educational institutions today-undergraduate or graduate-that gather together in one community the diversity of peoples one will encounter later in the wider world.

I am fully aware of the challenges that our two institutions face in this regard. Our location in a smaller, non-metropolitan community makes our task that much harder. I have, however, already noted the College's success in this area and I know that the School of Law has also made impressive strides in minority recruitment in recent years. Through creative partnering, aggressive recruitment and, most important, the offering of a distinctive education that cannot be obtained elsewhere, I am confident that our institutions can sustain and improve on this commitment. We also need to make much more of our proximity to Harrisburg, Baltimore, and Washington, D.C. I am concerned that for decades both the College and Dickinson School of Law have falsely convinced themselves of a physical isolation from the greater world that is simply not true. We at the College now view Carlisle as connected to the world.

I realize that the vision I have set forth is still general, but it is, I believe, a reasonable joint vision for two institutions that have far more in common than they have differences. We have shared not only a common location for nearly two centuries, but also a historic commitment to training our graduates for accomplished lives in the service of our democracy. It is a commitment that continues to guide each institution today. The challenge today for the Law School is to recognize and commit to its distinctive leadership story. We each have an expressed commitment to access and to providing opportunity to students who might otherwise not have the financial means to attend our schools. We each have responded to the larger forces shaping the modern world by developing a global focus and providing opportunities for our students to participate in the evolution of new disciplinary concentrations that reflect the wider reality. And we have a shared commitment to the citizens of Carlisle and Central Pennsylvania who have supported our institutions for decades and who derive so much in terms of quality of life and economic stability by our presence.

These shared legacies and commitments might, in my judgment, serve as a solid foundation upon which to build a stronger relationship between Dickinson College and Dickinson School of Law and permit us-as one institution-to assert a powerful leadership story that attracts highly qualified students and faculty from throughout the United States and the world. There are, however, serious challenges and realities that must be confronted.

The Challenges

First of all, as I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, I can enter into no arrangement that will in any way jeopardize or slow the progress that Dickinson College has made in recent years. This was my charge when I arrived five years ago and I am committed to helping Dickinson make the transformational leap for which it is now positioned. It profits no one, including the community, if the result of a new arrangement yields two financially and reputationally "weak" educational institutions in Carlisle.

Second, I must emphasize that a more formal arrangement between the College and the Law School would represent a major departure for us. Dickinson College has always been a residential liberal arts college, and we have consciously chosen to remain so, eschewing many of the new programs and initiatives that have been adopted by some of our peer institutions. Forming a formal affiliation with the Dickinson School of Law, therefore, would be a monumental decision for us.

Third, there is the ever-looming, but all important question of financial status and support. Much of the discussion over the past year has centered around the need to renovate Trickett Hall and all other facilities. Capital renovation and adequate facilities are undeniably important. I am equally concerned that sufficient resources are available to move both institutions to a new level not only in terms of the quality of their facilities, but more important, in the quality of their academic program. This will require adequate support for faculty, for fundraising initiatives, for aggressive recruitment and marketing campaigns and to develop the academic initiatives that will give the Dickinson School of Law its mark of distinctiveness and shared prestige which the College now enjoys. I shall tell you frankly that I am not interested in having the College become a caretaker of an academic program for which insufficient funds exist to allow it to progress or excel. Nor am I interested, of course, in a situation that drains the College's resources and diverts it from its momentum and ambition for continuous improvement and high accomplishment. Mediocrity is not an option for Dickinson College today. First-tier colleges and universities possess first-tier graduate and professional schools. Middlebury, Bryn Mawr and Washington and Lee come to mind specifically as examples of liberal arts colleges with graduate and professional divisions. Undergraduate and post-baccalaureate education at all are equally outstanding.

Dickinson College cannot shoulder the burden of securing adequate resources alone. This must become a partnership and a priority involving numerous partners. I would, for example, depend heavily on the alumni for their cooperation, time and generosity. I suggest that now is the time for Law School alumni to step forward boldly and support financially your alma mater in this time of possible transition. This is your moment. It is the moment for your generation to assume responsibility. I suggest that you now commit to shaping, with us, your legacy. The success of this venture will require you to seize ownership of your institution in a key means-your financial support.

I shall also look to the Commonwealth and the citizens of Pennsylvania for assistance in maintaining this state asset-an intellectual and economic engine for Central Pennsylvania and Cumberland County. If the discussion about the location of the Law School over the past ten months has taught us anything, it is that this institution is extremely vital to our community and our state and that there are many, many individuals who want to preserve this 170 year-old institution in its historic location. And I will look to The Pennsylvania State University for cooperation, magnanimousness and fairness as we continue to meet so that any final agreement will ensure a positive and successful future for the Dickinson School of Law.

This leads me to my fourth point. Because the Dickinson School of Law is legally an entity of The Pennsylvania State University, our discussions and negotiations about finances, liabilities, endowment, and employment contracts must be conducted solely with the administration of Penn State. These discussions must also eventually include questions of governance, including the structure, composition and responsibilities of oversight bodies, as well as the exact nature of a Dickinson College-Dickinson School of Law affiliation.

As many of you know, I have already had several conversations with President Spanier and his administrative team and I anticipate that we will meet more frequently in the upcoming weeks. The tenor of these deliberations will be key to the outcome of these discussions. While it would be inappropriate for me to speak for Penn State, I can assure you that I am entering this mutual discussion in good faith to craft a transparent and mutually agreeable solution that gives the Dickinson School of Law the opportunity to build on its past accomplishments and become Pennsylvania's most distinctive and respected law school.

I can also assure you that paralleling actual negotiations with the administration of Penn State, our conversations with other concerned parties will be highly inclusive. Dickinson College will listen to all communities and all points of view. I have already met with members of the Carlisle community and selected members of the Board of Governors, Dickinson School of Law alumni, Dickinson College Trustees, alumni, faculty and students. I have expressed my willingness to meet with Dickinson School of Law faculty, students and alumni. And I will, of course, be willing to meet repeatedly, as necessary with this body or any other appropriate constituencies for informational purposes throughout the negotiation between us and the administration of Penn State.

If there is ultimately an arrangement reached to proceed with an affiliation, it will succeed only if there is broad agreement within the College and the Law School on a progressive partnership and cooperative vision for our institutions and a determination to commit to doing all that it takes to fulfill our shared objectives in a reasonable amount of time. Discord in this process will be unappealing to Dickinson College. We are acting now in a forthright attempt to advance positively our historic neighbor and to keep the Dickinson School of Law in Carlisle as a most prestigious institution. If we sense early that this effort is not consistent with that of key parties related to the Dickinson School of Law, or even not embraced with enthusiasm, or that other arrangements for ownership are still viewed as viable, or if we discover that various conditions-financial, governing, cultural, institutional-that I have identified throughout this speech are not present to permit a mutually successful relationship, we will regrettably withdraw from this particular discussion and opportunity. That said, we will remain, as always, committed in general to any substantive effort to keep Carlisle vital and to insure that our hallmark educational institutions-the College, the U.S. Army War College and the Dickinson School of Law-thrive.

I urge you, the Dickinson School of Law Board of Governors, to determine in a reasonable amount of time whether you are supportive of this particular possibility for the Dickinson School of Law involving directly Dickinson College in the form of complete ownership. Your disposition towards our effort to be of some assistance to the Law School at this historic, crucial moment is important to us.

Thank you again for giving me the opportunity to speak with you today.

Back to President's Page