Law School Fund 1966: Sixth Annual Report University of Michigan Law School
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Miscellaneous Law School Publications Law School History and Publications 1967 Law School Fund 1966: Sixth Annual Report University of Michigan Law School Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.law.umich.edu/miscellaneous Part of the Legal Education Commons Citation University of Michigan Law School, "Law School Fund 1966: Sixth Annual Report" (1967). Miscellaneous Law School Publications. http://repository.law.umich.edu/miscellaneous/48 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School History and Publications at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Miscellaneous Law School Publications by an authorized administrator of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. law Quadrangle Notes The University of Michigan Official Publication LAW SCHOOL FUND 1966 -------- ---------------- SIXTH ANNUAL REPORT VOL. 69, No. 5 JULY 19, 1967 Entered as secor1d-c/ass matter at the Post Office at Ann Arbor, Michigan. Issued semiweekly July and August and triweekly September thruugh June by The University of Michigan. Office of fntblication, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104. Dean Francis A. Allen, Universily of Michigan, Hulchins Hall, Ann Arbor, Michigan Dear Dean Allen: During its 1966 campaign, the Michigan Law School Mr. Emmett E. Eagan Fund attained new highs both in terms of the number Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone o( alumni and friends making contributions and in 2500 Detroit Bank and Trust Building terms of amount of money received. Accordingly, it Detroit, Michigan 48226 gives me very real pleasure to be able to report that, as a result, $171,934.16 has been made available to Dear Emmett: you and your colleagues on the faculty to be used The record made by the Law School Fund under to provide the "extras in excellence" and thus to assist your outstanding leadership is a source of great satis the Law School in maintaining its position of pre faction to me and to the entire faculty and staff of the eminence in the field of legal education. School. I wish to express the sincere gTatitude of all The 1966 campaign dramatically reemphasized the of us for the contributions of time and money made continuing awareness which exists on the part of the by the alumni and friends of the School to this highly alumni and friends of the Law School of needs which successful campaign. can be provided for only through the Law School Fund Throughout my first year as Dean, I have been con and a willingness to respond generously to those needs. tinually impressed by the importance of private giving The gratifying results of the 1966 campaign could not, to the life of the School. I am persuaded that this im however, have been achieved except for the efforts of portance will increase, rather than diminish, in the some 480 loyal alumni who gave unstintingly of their future. The University of Michigan Law School is time and effort to make that campaign a success and entering upon an era of increased activities and ex whose reward lies in the knowledge that they have panded intellectual commitments. This heightening made an added contribution to the Law School which of the tempo of training and scholarship reflects the is not measureable in dollars. age in which we live. Never has the legal profession The 1966 campaign added another and satisfying been confronted by such opportunities, obligations, chapter to the saga of the continued and continuing and challenges. '"'e at the School propose to respond growth of the Law School Fund during the six years to these challenges in a manner befitting one of the of its existence which the following table graphically world's great centers of legal education. unfolds: In such a time the demand for resources wiII in crease. Even more than in the past the developing Number of Contributors Amounts Received distinction of the School depends upon the support Increase Increase of its thousands of friends and alumni. Those partici Over Over pating in last year's Law School Fund have demon Previous Previous strated a welcome awarness o( these needs. Vve thank Year Number Year Amount Year you for your substantial contribution to the excellence 1961 I, 198 $ 49,663.61 of the Law School and pledge our best ellorts to merit 1962 l,820 51.93 87,493.94 76.23 your continuing support in the years to come. 1963 2,510 37.93 128,012.81 46.33 Sincerely, 1964 2,913 16.1% 144,898.13 13.23 1965 2,518 (13.63) 147,236.81 1.63 1966 3,347 32.73 171,934.16 14.43 1S~a~ On behalf of all who responded so generously to the Francis A. Allen needs of the Law School during the 1966 campaign of Dean the Michigan Law School Fund and on behalf of all those loyal alumni who laboured so diligently and effectively to make that campaign a success, I tender to you the fruits of that campaign together with their every good wish and their assurance of a continuing awarness of the needs of the Law School and a willing ness to assist you in satisfying those needs. Sincerely, Reading . Between the Sheets There are so many facts, statistics, numbers, names, etc. on the pages of this report that some noteworthy conclusions may be missed by a few of you who are too busy to make a detailed analysis. Thus, we shall try to help, and add a few comparisons that are not observable without access to the facts and figures from previous years. In the first place, we have made a modest change in format. You will still find a summary of the gifts to the Fund on the basis of the various Law School classes, and we have a second summary showing the geographi cal distribution of our alumni and the numbers and total amounts of gifts received from these various geographical regions and subregions. These two re 1966 than the winning 1948 total of 101 a year ago. ports reflect the basic "organization" for the Fund. But The other 1965 leaders all remained near the top, but in this report for 1966, the list of contributors to the there was a shuffling of positions- 1963 and 1959 ex Fund has been changed to show the place of practice changed second and fourth positions, and 1950 moved (or sometimes, residence) of the donor, instead of his from seventh in 1965 to third in 1966. There was a or her class. A number of people suggested that they whole new alignment of classes contributing the most didn't know whether their friends were in the Class dollars. In the very important category of percentage of '38 or '48, but they did know they practiced in of contributors, the Class of 1943 virtually doubled its Peoria or Tucson and they could look for their names participation in 1966, and moved from far back in the more easily. We still have the names of contributors pack to first place. Congratulations to Stuart Reading! by classes, and these will be provided to the class Come on, class agents, give him a battle! Only the agents for distribution in the fall. Class of 1955 (second this year and fourth in 1965) re We are continuing an alphabetical listing of donors tained its place among the leaders. It's worth noting whose gifts arrived in .January 1967. The dollars will that the percentage of participation for each of the count in 1967, but we know that many of these gifts first five classes this year is higher than the winning were the result of efforts in connection with the 1966 percentage for the Class of 1930 a year ago. campaign. THERE WILL BE A CHANGE IN 1967. .Jim Bradley again obtained a gift from every alum The J 967 (and future) campaigns will officially con nus in Alaska (plus an additional gift from the father tinue until .January 31. of a present student). No other state quite made l 00 Last summer we voiced some mild concern about per cent. Arthur Green, Jr., came within two in New one fact. In 1965 the total dollars had increased some Hampshire. What state will be next? what, but the number of gifts had dropped off nearly Our Regions vary greatly in size, total population, 400 in comparison to the previous year. Happily, this and density. Comparisons are difficult. However, in happening did not become a trend, and we received J 966 there was a higher amount of gifts from 12 of over 800 more gifts in 1966 lhan in 1965, and reached the 13 Regions. Only Region XIII (Hawaii) slipped a a new high. Since the ultimate strength of the Law little. Nine of the thirteen Regions contributed more School Fund, and of the Law Sd1ool in its relationships money in 1966 than in 1965. Perhaps special recogni with the alumni in various ways, depends to a large ex tion should be given to Steve Clink in Region XII tent on having the broadest possible base of partici (western and northern Michigan). In 1966 he doubled pants, we are extremely pleased with this development. the 1965 figures for that Region for both the number Hopefully, still more of you will want to join the of gifts and total dollars. crowd in 1967. In other boxes we have singled out geographical Contributions to the Law School Fund in 1966 areas with a chairman in charge, some with 20 or totaled $171,934.16, which was an increase of more alumni, and some with less, in which the per $24,697.35, or 14.4 per cent over the total for 1965! centage of participation was high.