For Immediate
Release

October 23,
2007
MOTION FOR INJUNCTION FILED TO STOP AUCTION OF RANDOLPH-MACON WOMAN'S
COLLEGE ART UNTIL RELATED LAWSUITS DECIDED

Group Hoping for Action from Attorney General Bob McDonnell 

LYNCHBURG, VA -In an effort to prevent the trustees of Lynchburg's
Randolph-Macon Woman's College (R-MWC)-known as Randolph College since
July-from auctioning four irreplaceable paintings to increase an already

generous $153 million endowment, a motion for temporary injunction and a
complaint requesting a temporary and permanent injunction has been filed
before the Lynchburg Circuit Court, Preserve Educational Choice
announced 
today.

"Judging by how hastily and secretively Randolph College officials took
away the art, it is clear that the college fears a ruling from the
Supreme
Court against their actions and is moving to sell the pieces of art as 
quickly as possible," said Anne Yastremski, Executive Director of
Preserve
Educational Choice, the alumnae group supporting the lawsuits.

"This motion for injunction seeks to stop the College from irreparably 
harming their reputation and their world-class American art collection
until these lawsuits against Randolph College have been cleared by the
Commonwealth of Virginia's court system. We've been waiting for Attorney

General Bob McDonnell to take action to stop the College, but since we
know
of no action thus far, the plaintiffs in this injunction suit and
thousands
of other alumnae, donors to the College and the Maier, and citizens of 
Lynchburg felt they needed to take action themselves."

The plaintiffs that have filed the request for an injunction include all
of
the students, alumnae and donors of R-MWC involved in the charitable
trust 
and breach of contract lawsuits that currently are being considered on
appeal to the Supreme Court of Virginia, as well as the eleven potential
"intervenors" who have asked the Lynchburg Circuit Court to stop
Randolph 
College's attempt to sell off the art purchased with funds from the
Trust
of Louise Jordan Smith.

Just last month, the Supreme Court of Virginia decided to hear appeals
of
two lawsuits challenging the College's fall 2006 decision to become 
co-educational. The first suit, which involves "donor intent,"
challenges
the college on charitable trust grounds, arguing that the college should
have to prove it cannot continue as a woman's college before it can use
the 
assets accumulated under the original charitable purpose - to "educate
women in the liberal arts" - for the benefit of a coed college. The
second suit, filed by a group of students, alleges breach of contract, 
saying that they had been promised four years of single-sex education.
Both suits pending before the Supreme Court of Virginia include
allegations that the
protection of the art collection is vital to providing the relief sought
by 
the student and donor plaintiffs.

In the Circuit Court case filed by the College, the College asked the
courts for permission to break the Trust of Louise Jordan Smith.
Relatives
of Louise Jordan Smith, students, alumnae, former faculty and Maier
Museum 
directors, donors, and Lynchburg citizens filed a Motion for Leave to
Intervene in the suit, alleging that the money from Smith's trust was
used
to purchase a large number of the most valuable paintings in Randolph's 
Maier Museum collection. The intervenors contend that the entire art
collection must be protected in order to honor the intentions of Smith,
both through her trust and her efforts during her lifetime. A hearing on

that motion to intervene is scheduled for November 15.

"The Court's decisions in these cases could affect whether or not the
College can or needs to sell the paintings now at Christie's," says 
Yastremski. "If the College is allowed to go forward with the Christie's
auction before our cases are finalized, the art-pieces like George
Wesley
Bellow's 1912 "Men of the Docks" which constitute the cornerstone of the

Maier-will be lost forever."

Yastremski, pointing to the college's $153 million endowment (one of the
largest in Virginia), believes the College's efforts to sell these
paintings are "due to greed, not need." 

While the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS) has put
the
College on financial warning, it was not due to the size of the
endowment. The specific issues that SACS cited the college for -
astronomical tuition 
discounting (nearly twice the national average), excessive deferred
maintenance, and operating deficits - are all signs of fiscal
mismanagement, not a too-small endowment.

"Randolph College officials will do anything to mask the real problems: 
out-of-control spending and poor management, neither of which will be
fixed
by selling portions of the school's treasured art collection," said
Yastremski. "This collection was not assembled as a financial investment

for future 'hard times,' but rather from public donations and funds
allocated to benefit the college's educational mission and to create a
cultural
resource for the community. Two of the four paintings in question were 
donations from private individuals to the permanent collection, one was
purchased with fees paid by students (at their request) specifically for
the purpose of
buying art and supporting artistic events on campus, and the most
valuable 
one - "Men of the Docks" - was purchased by a Lynchburg-based community
group with the express purpose of forming a permanent collection for the
benefit of thestudents and the citizens of Lynchburg." 

Even if an infusion of capital was necessary, which thousands of alumnae
and donors don't believe, the national art community has strict
standards
against the sale of art for general fund purposes. Nearly every major 
Virginia and national art association has condemned the College's plans
to
sell the four paintings, including the Association of Art Museum
Directors,
the Association of Art Museum Curators, the College Art Association, the

Association of College and University Museums and Galleries and the
Virginia Association of Museums.

"It is obvious that the current Randolph officials and Trustees care
nothing for ethics or their donor's wishes. Hopefully the Attorney 
General and the Commonwealth's Courts will realize this, and act
accordingly," said
Yastremski. "If not, donors may need to think twice about investing
their
hard earned resources with the state's many nonprofits."