Win Churchill

Interviewee: Win Churchill (Pennsylvania & New College 1962) [hereafter ‘RES’]  

Moderator: Jamie Byron Geller [hereafter ‘INT’]  

Date of interview: 26 February 2026 

INT: This is Jamie Byron Geller on behalf of the Rhodes Trust and I am here today with Winston Churchill, Pennsylvania and New College, 1962 to record Win’s Rhodes Scholar oral history which is helping us to launch the first ever comprehensive Rhodes Scholar Oral History project. Today’s date is February 26th, 2026. And Win would you mind please saying your full name for the recording?  

RES: Winston J. Churchill Jnr to add to the insult.  

INT: Wonderful. And Winston do I have your permission to record audio and video of our conversation today?  

RES: Yes you do.  

INT: Great. So we are having this conversation virtually thanks to Zoom but where are you joining from today Win?  

RES: We’re at our home in Boca Raton, Florida.  

INT: Great. And how long has Boca Raton been home for you?  

RES: Well it’s a seasonal thing Jame but five or six years.  

INT: And where was home before that?  

RES: Well Philadelphia.  

INT: Okay.  

RES: We still have a place in Philadelphia that we use in the summer time. And then this place here and what the beauty I think of Boca is it’s halfway between Miami and Palm Beach. So it’s neither Miami nor Palm Beach but it’s a happy medium.  

INT: Great. And were you born in Philadelphia?  

RES: I was.  

INT: Okay.  

RES: I was born in a neighbourhood in Philadelphia in the Northwest corner of Philadelphia called West Oak Lane. And it was a middle to working-class neighbourhood. You know row houses etc. etc. And a mixture between a Jewish population and mostly Irish Catholics. So my mother was an Irish Catholic and my father was Welsh. So we used to joke and say you came from a mixed marriage.  

INT: And did you have siblings? Who was part of your household growing up?  

RES: I had one brother and sister, a twin brother who is five years older. And they were maternal twins, not, obviously not identical twins. And so I had the five years gap and I was protected by both of them in different ways.  

INT: Great. And what year were you born Win?  

RES: I was born in 1940 and the Junior in my name, my father was born on Churchill’s birthday, I could say the real Churchill, the legitimate Churchill, [unclear 00:02:52] in 1910. And he was not terribly well-known but as I said my father was Welsh and therefore, you know, British derivation. And his parents knew enough at that point to foresee what Churchill was and might become. I guess he’d been First Lord of the Admiralty and a few things like that at that point. And then came 1940, you know, 30 years later. So when I was born in 1940 it seemed the natural thing to my parents to name me Winston Jnr. And I can say it’s a mixed blessing this name.  

INT: That’s fascinating. That’s, what an interesting origin story to your name and to your father’s name.  

RES: Everybody remembers my name and I’m good with faces but terrible with names. But thank God I have a wonderful wife who is terrific with names.  

INT: And I would love to know Win a little bit about your earliest educational experiences that you recall.  

RES: Okay. So hark back to this neighbourhood in West Oak Lane in Northwest Philadelphia. And because of my mother’s Catholicism I went to the Catholic grade school in the neighbourhood. And we would walk to school every day, it was called St Athanasius. And we would walk to school every day and had the Sisters of St Joseph as our teachers. And on the way to school would be sort of half of we Catholic kids and half Jewish kids because the Temple Sinai school was on the way to St Athanasius. So it was a time of, what comedy between the neighbourhoods. It was all one neighbourhood. By the time I got to sixth and seventh grade I was the paper boy for the neighbourhood. So I’d ride my red bike around with the Philadelphia Bulletin and, you know, fold them in half and flip them onto the little porches at the row houses.  

INT: Was that your first job?  

RES: That was my first job. My brother had had the job before me and I inherited his bicycle and his taste for pedalling up and down hills. So it was a good thing for one’s legs you know.  

INT: And were there particular subjects that you gravitated towards in elementary school?  

RES: I mean I was always pretty genetically lucky. So I was always pretty good on both sides of the table, maybe slightly better at math than the verbal side. But as I say genetically lucky and you know studied, did my homework dutifully and so forth.  

INT: And did you have- 

RES: My father- 

INT: Oh sorry, please.  

RES: My father was what they called an insurance man. So he worked for a large insurance company downtown. The Insurance Company of North America. And you know we didn’t have a lot of excess money so the idea was everybody knew they were going to have to make it on their own. Yeah. And it was actually a wonderful childhood. But filled with some hard work both in terms of the paper routes and homework and summers playing baseball in the vacant lots and so forth.  

INT: Yeah. I was going to ask you about that. What kind of activities filled your time outside of school?  

RES: Well we did play baseball all summer and root for the Philadelphia Phillies who are still extant and that’s the national league and then the American league it was the Athletics. So they no longer exist. And if there were divisions in the neighbourhood it was whether you rooted for the Phillies or the As, we called them the As. So next to our house we had the local sandlot baseball field and so forth. And you know other months we’d play touch football.  

INT: Great. And you mentioned going to a Catholic elementary school. Was your high school Catholic as well?  

RES: Well this is a bit of a longer story but you’ll pardon me.  

INT: Please.  

RES: So, so my mother’s uncle had been what’s called the Jesuit Provisional. So you know the Jesuit teaching order of Catholic priests. And the Provisional in the Jesuits is the equivalent of a Cardinal. So he was a very, very senior wonderful man and so forth. And charged with the overseeing all the Jesuit educational activities in the Northeast quadrant of the US. So it was called the New England province but included Pennsylvania. And so my mother always insisted, and my brother and I both went to the Jesuit high school in Philadelphia. It’s called St Joe’s Prep, St Joseph’s Prep. And even though it was a difficult commute and so forth and so on. So one of the things- And academically very rigorous. And you know it’s a gateway school to the Ivy League and the better Catholic colleges, the Fordhams, the Georgetowns, etc. And my uncle would come and would start- Or her uncle I should say would come kind of twice a year and be very intimidating, you know, serene, think kind of priestly presence and give his blessing. And I remember kneeling down on the living room as a little kid and not knowing what the hell was going on, you know.  

INT: Was, I’m curious if, if you know with your uncle’s work, if religion was a large part of your life at home.  

RES: Well my father was a Protestant, so remember I said a mixed marriage. So no, I would say no, we were not kind of highly observant at home. Sunday mass, you know, once a week and then of course going to the Catholic grade school, you know, there is religion taught as one of the courses. Not exactly theology but, you know, the Catholic religion. And the sisters of St Joseph are another great teaching order in the Catholic church. And you know so we had I would say a liberal religious education in addition to the three Rs and so forth.  

INT: And did you have a sense Win of, you know, as you were, as you made your way through childhood and into high school, did you have a sense of what you wanted to do when you grew up with regards to line of work?  

[00:09:58] 

RES: Not really, not really Jamie. You know aside from needing to get good enough grades to qualify for the Prep as we called it, and you know they had a rigorous entrance exam and so forth. And being, and bracing oneself for the long commute from this neighbourhood. And later we moved to the suburbs, the Northern suburbs as I was still a student at the Prep. So this was you know a train, the subway, or hitchhike down Broad Street on the Philadelphia main street, hitchhike to save the subway fare. So it was that kind of approach to things, you know, save money wherever you can. And understand that you need to, you know, make it on your own and do something meaningful.  

INT: Had your parents grown up in the Philadelphia area?  

RES: Yes.  

INT: They did.  

RES: Yes both of them, yeah.  

INT: Okay. And you have mentioned this commute to high school. How long was that journey for you?  

RES: It was, when we moved to the suburbs it was an hour and 10 minutes or so.  

INT: Oh wow. Wow.  

RES: Yeah. Yeah.  

INT: That is quite the journey for a high schooler.  

RES: Philadelphia has a Transit Authority that’s infamous and it’s called SEPTA, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit  Authority. So there are spurs of trains that go out to the various suburbs. And we were kind of at the end of one of the most Northern spurs.  

INT: Okay.  

RES: So it was, you know, 45 minutes on the train and then half an hour to either take the subway down Broad Street or hitchhike when the weather was good enough. And in those days you could hitchhike, right. So, here we’re talking about, let’s see, 1940, so we’re talking about the mid-fifties.  

INT: Wow. And did, you mentioned that St Joe’s being a prep school and, you know, college preparatory. Had you had your sights on Fordham throughout high school as a place that could be next for you?  

RES: Well that’s another good story again if you don’t mind.  

INT: No please.  

RES: So I, I was, as I say, genetically lucky and you know worked hard and the Prep gave one a good education. So I, in senior year I was applying to the Ivy League going down the Fordhams and Georgetowns. And I had come to my mother and say, “Hey mum, I got a letter from Princeton. I got a scholarship to Princeton.” And she said, “That’s very nice but you’re going to go to Fordham.” And I did this two or three times, “Hey mum I got a scholarship to Harvard.” “That’s very nice but you’re going to go to Fordham.” So finally I get the letter from Fordham and I came home one day and said, “Hey mum, I got the letter from Fordham.” She said, “You made a wise choice my son.”  

INT: What was your mum’s motivation for encouraging you to pursue Fordham?  

RES: Well I think her grand uncle and she was, you know, very committed to this Jesuit form of Catholic education. And, you know, Fordham- And I was on the board at Fordham for many years thereafter, thanks in part to of course to the Rhodes Scholarship. But I will always describe it, I say Fordham is a little bit provincial but if you have to be provincial you want to be provincial from New York City, right. So it’s, not that’s really a fair characterisation but in those days Fordham was, at least in Catholic circles, you know, the sort of top academic. Fordham and Boston College probably. And Georgetown was kind of more for the richer, more socialite kids. Since then for reasons we’ll get into as we go along here, Georgetown of course is in the front ranks and Fordham is still very much in the front ranks. And you know and Boston College I think, although I’m not, not as conversant with it. Fordham and Georgetown I was on the boards for, you know, 17, 18 years each. And I am still Director Emeritus. So I follow them pretty closely.  

INT: Wow, that is inc- And something that I- You know I would love to talk about as we move through our conversation when, you’re just commitment to education at all levels. And so wonderful to hear about your service at Fordham and Georgetown.  

RES: Well it’s the key, it’s the key to life and it’s the key to the American dream. And it’s the key to upward mobility. And we’ll talk more about that I hope as we go along.  

INT: Yeah. Yeah absolutely. And what was your experience like at Fordham and also, you know, both, both from an education standpoint but also are you living in New York at this time?  

RES: Sure I lived on the main campus in the Bronx. That’s another pretty good story. So my father, the cheap Welshman right, this was 1958, so he says, “You will get on the train and when you get into your dorm, you’ll get on the payphone down the hall and put in,” I guess it was a dime in those days, “with the catalogue in your hand and we’ll pick a major for you.” So I said, “Okay dad, that sounds like a good deal.” So I get down the hall, you could move into the dorm with my roommate, you know, in the Bronx, right. The main campus in the Bronx. If you’re not familiar, a beautiful campus next to the Bronx Zoo. So it’s not some of the worst neighbourhoods in the Bronx. It’s the best neighbourhood if you will in the Bronx. So I get down the hall with a dime in my hand and the catalogue and I get him on the phone. And he says, “Well quick,” this is 1958, “I’m just reading about this Sputnik thing, the Soviets have launched this satellite and there’s going to be a space race and so forth. So you’d better take electrical engineering.” So I said, “Well dad it’s great because of mum’s influence I am here on a full scholarship to Fordham and I’ve got the catalogue. But now that I’m here at Fordham we don’t have engineering.” So he says, “What else do they have?” I’ll never forget this. So I say, “Well biology, chemistry and physics.” And he says, “You’ll major in physics. That’s close enough.” So for an insurance man, right, physics and engineering are close enough. So that I did, I majored in physics.  

INT: Wow. And had you, had you thought about a major for yourself prior to this conversation? Or was this kind of always the plan that this is a, you know, a decision that you might make in partnership with your dad over the phone? I love this story.  

RES: Yeah well first he would have a voice in it but again being, you know, sort of fairly equal on both sides of the table if you will, we had not really discussed it to any greater extent. I mean I had never regretted, you know, that major. And as I say probably slightly better qualified on the math side than everything else. But there is, you will see there is some drift as we go along with the story here. So- 

INT: Yeah. So, so I’m curious about your, you know, that you, you had experienced a Catholic and Jesuit education and how you experienced that at Fordham, if there were parallels there or what your college experience was like in that regard academically.  

RES: Well it was very rigorous I would say. So and this becomes part of the story too. So at Fordham they had and still have an Honours Programme. And you know sort of walking around the dorm and the campus and so forth I soon got the word that you definitely want to get admitted to the Honours Programme but they don’t take too many scientists, right. Scientific majors. So and there is this house called Honours House and it’s a separate building on the main campus. And it’s run by a Jesuit priest called Father Timothy Healy, who again becomes famous down the line here. So I said, okay I’m going to wander in and see if he’ll let me into the Honours Programme. So I went into the, I’ll never forget, into and sat at his big desk in his office and explained a lot of what you and I have just gone over, you know. How the heck did you get here and do you know what you’re doing and why are you here and so forth? And he said, “Well you know we don’t normally admit physics majors because they’re probably a little too focused on physics only and the purpose of this Honours Programme is to develop broad-based individuals who can be leaders in some respects.” And you know do something, you know, the Jesuit mantra in education is to become men and women for others. And this will connect up with the world’s fight, part of the Rhodes mantra, right. So he said, “Okay we’re going to let you in and because you’re now potentially more a narrow gauge you are going to have junior year abroad and you’re going to go to the Faculté des Sciences, which is the science part of the Sorbonne and you’re going to do quantum mechanics.”  

INT: Wow.  

RES: So now this, he was a professor of English, right. But you know one of the best types of Jesuits, a Renaissance man really. And you know became a second father to me, very strong influence. Positive all the way.  

[00:20:02] 

Later became President of Georgetown which is sort of what ended projecting Georgetown into the front ranks of things. So I said, “Okay Father, thank you.” And then, and the Honours Programme in addition to your normal course load, there were additional courses in that which you were not majoring in.  

INT: Okay.  

RES: Right, so then you know politics and the liberal arts and English and so forth. So this was a very rounding experience but it took, you know, most of your weekday nights. More tutorials, more like the Oxford method.  

INT: And was this- Did you enter into that programme freshman year? Or was this further along?  

RES: Yeah.  

INT: Freshman year, okay.  

RES: Freshman year. Yeah.  

INT: Okay. Wow.  

RES: And indeed I ended up applying for the Sorbonne, for the Faculté des Sciences in sophomore year and got admitted. And I went into Honours House there and there was Father Healy. And I said, and he said, “Well that’s wonderful you’ve been admitted and it’s exactly what I was advising.” And I said, “It’s great Father but I’m taking German, I don’t speak French.” He says, “You will go to the, we have these French mountain climbing camp next to Mont Blanc, you will go to this camp for three months and if you survive you’ll speak French.”  

INT: Oh my gosh! And did you?  

RES: And that’s what I did, and that’s what I did.  

INT: Oh wow!  

RES: And obviously survived, right.  

INT: Wow! So-  

RES: You know for the second semester of sophomore year took French in addition to German.  

INT: Okay.  

RES: You know German if you were a scientist it was thought that German was more relevant than French. But obviously that doesn’t apply to mathematics and quantum mechanics and lots of physics. And it’s a prejudice, you know, it’s, they are both relevant.  

INT: And so then you spent your- Did you spend your junior year abroad then?  

RES: Yes.  

INT: Okay.  

RES: In Paris. So living in Paris.  

INT: Wow. And what was that experience like? Had you spent time outside the US before that?  

RES: I don’t think I had ever been out of the country. You know we sailed over on the SS United States. This was before there were- The airliners were still, you know, prop airliners and would stop in Iceland. So the more common way to get across was to take an ocean liner. So we- And I had, actually my roommate ended up at the Sorbonne doing political science. So we all, four or five of us made the trip together to go over for this junior year. And obviously tremendously exciting and you leave from New York and so forth.  

INT: Yeah. A parallel to later experiences I would imagine.  

RES: Yeah. And obviously a trip I have made now many times across the Atlantic.  

INT: And did you have the occasion to, when you were in Paris that year, did you travel much throughout Europe?  

RES: I didn’t have any money, you know, was the problem. You know and I lived in this kind of cheap boarding house. And then, you know, quantum mechanics is a handful even if you are mathematically inclined. So there was a lot of work. But we travelled in the summers, mostly France and some Scandinavia, Belgium, you know, the Low Countries. Not so much Germany for whatever reason, just accidental trips, you know, with your friends. And all very broadening and, you know, all fascinating. And great luck of course to be exposed to all of this.  

INT: And if I recall correctly that, was Father Healy also instrumental in your awareness about the Rhodes Scholarship?  

RES: Yes. So, so after junior year I came back and he said, “Well you know you’ve done pretty well. The teacher of quantum mechanics was Louis de Broglie who was one of the founders of quantum mechanics, right. So no, no mean feat to be able to follow him through the course of the year. He says, “Well you’ve done pretty well so now you’re going to apply for the Rhodes Scholarship.” And I said, “Well pardon, forgive me Father, I’m not exactly sure what that is.” And he explained to me what that was, right. And so that, that really is why you and I are here, that conversation. So that’s what I did along with some of my classmates and two Fordham guys had applied the prior year as a result of Healy’s guidance, right. And one of the two got it and became, ended up becoming a Jesuit priest. And the other did not get it but applied again in my year, so he was a year ahead of me at Fordham and got it. He went to UVA Law School for the intervening year but applied for the Rhodes and got it. And so we became classmates at Oxford. And one of my dearest friends, lifelong friend.  

INT: Wow. Oh that’s lovely. So two Fordham members of the 32 member of your US class.  

RES: Yes. Yes. From different districts and different states obviously.  

INT: Yeah. Oh great. And did you- You know you had mentioned that when you were in high school, not necessarily having a sense of where your career might take but that it had been a rigorous academic experience. And it sounds like it certainly continued to be throughout college. At that time did you expect that your career would probably in the sciences or in physics?  

RES: Well no, I mean Jamie, that’s- So what is the catch-all thing to do at Oxford is PPE, right. So that’s what I did. And at this point I said to myself, you know, physics is terrific but if there are, you know, important roles in the world that involve understanding, again better understanding the other side of the table. So what then, and I think it was, is it still called Greats? It’s still called Modern Greats I think. The Great Greats was Latin and Greek. Part of this is probably still true at Oxford by the way. But Modern Greats was politics, philosophy and economics. So that’s what I did and then again never regretted that. Probably did more economics than the other two. But and we’d had a lot of philosophy through the years at Fordham. So this was a natural continuation of kind of that side of the house. But no science right.  

INT: Yeah. And how was, you know, I’m conscious that the PPE degree was probably predominantly tutorial style education.  

RES: Yes. 

INT: And was wondering if you would mind sharing a little bit about that. Because I imagine that might have been a little different than the physics quantum mechanics focus.  

RES: Yeah well I mean if you ask what’s the sort of magic of the Oxford method and system, it’s the tutorial system because it’s completely tailored. I was at New College and in those days, they may still be true, I should know these things because I have been a co-founder in the American Friends of New College since returning from Oxford and still with that ever since. So I’m very well in touch with New College. But having the tutor means two things. One is it’s, you are specifically brought along as quickly as possible, right, specific to your speed if you will. And second is there is no place to hide, right. So your gaps become readily apparent which is a good thing obviously, may not be so great for your security but there is, you know, there is essentially no faking it. So I think it’s a wonderful system but too costly for- I should put it this way, it’s a hell of a lot more expensive than the classroom type system. So most universities cannot afford that. And as you know there are also lectures at Oxford that had more general applicability and work between time. And the writing of essays, you know, for three different subjects once a week sort of forces one to become a decent writer.  

INT: Mmm, yeah. 

RES: And so you can express your thoughts which is obviously very important for the world’s fight, we’re coming to that right.  

INT: Yeah absolutely. And you mentioned your close friendship with New College. So curious if you would mind expanding a little bit on the experience of living in college.  

RES: Well it’s wonderful, you know. Again because- You know hall and the meals together with everybody else and so forth, yeah smaller groups than the kind of university dining hall or something. So it’s a terrific experience. And you know your tutors and professors live there and then they may teach there and other places.  

[00:30:01] 

Sorry- So it’s a terrific experience and again it makes the 24/7 learning experience both in terms of the academics and, you know, living life with people that you want to be associated with. And learning the difference too, you know. Yeah, so I think it’s a big key to the system and we all hope it can still continue to be afforded right.  

INT: Yeah. And did you- 

RES: But it’s, you know, it’s highly selective right. So if we turn to thoughts about democracy and inequality and so forth, it is highly selective but democracies need, you know, well educated leadership.  

INT: Yeah, absolutely. And I’m curious, you mentioned a Fordham classmate, or a Fordham member of your Rhodes class who was also part of your journey. I’m curious if either Rhodes House or your broader Rhodes class was part of your time in Oxford?  

RES: Yes Jamie, certainly my friend, he was at Merton so a different college. Did I tell you my Winston Churchill story? You’ve got to hear this. So, I arrive at New College and move, speaking of the dorm right, thinking of the dorm. And move into the dorm and in a few days I start getting these engraved invitations to white tie embassy balls. So you know addressed to Mr Winston Churchill, right. So you probably recall that the mail service is done by the college scouts, you know, the college servants if you will. And what they do is meet in Carfax, the centre of town in a pub to do the exchange. So there can be a little confusion as a result of the venue, right. So after about two weeks of getting these engraved, white invitations and I’d get a note from Winston Churchill at Christ Church, my contemporary, same name, the legitimate grandson, right. And it says, “I think we’d better meet.” So we did meet and became, you know, acquaintances, not exactly close friends but friendly acquaintances and we exchanged our invitations. So I got the American Rugby Football Club and he got his white tie embassy ball invitations. And then we straightened out both the Christ Church and New College, you know, front desks to make sure we didn’t have this continue. And I would see him, you know, from time to time, not that often. As you know different colleges, you tend to have a little bit of a separate life.  

INT: It’s a great story. And so you mentioned rugby. Did you play rugby in, while in Oxford?  

RES: I did. I played for New College. I had played a little football at the Prep. But the main thing I did was rowing. You know the Schuylkill river in Philadelphia, it’s very well-known for its rowing tradition and a row of beautiful boathouses called Boathouse Row. And when I was at the Prep the sort of principle Olympic crew, there was Grace Kelly’s older brother was called Jack Kelly, was the captain of the then 1960 Olympic crew, right. So they were training there and we at the Prep had schoolboy champion level crews. But we were the rabbits for the Olympic crew. So the rabbits mean we would row our hearts out at 38 or something for a 1000 yards and then would be rowing 32 and sweep by us. And you know, because they are bigger, stronger and older and so forth. But it was, that was one of the disciplines that developed us into a, you know, nationally ranked high school crew. So that’s the main thing I did. I played a little football but-  

INT: So did you, did you row then for your college?  

RES: Yes I did yeah for New College, yeah.  

INT: And what was the experience like of rowing in the UK versus the US? Because I know there are some, some slight differences in how things are done in Oxford, right.  

RES: Yeah let’s see, how to put this. It was a little more, I don’t want to say elitist but a little higher toned I’d say that, so you know rowing in the US is more American if you will in tone. And you know if you go to the national competitions and stuff, you know, there are going to be some good crews from some Midwest high school and who give you a hell of a run for your money. So it’s not elitist I’ll put it that way. But, and there were still some, a little snobbiness I would say surrounding rowing in the UK. I don’t want to be critical, I mean because it’s a wonderful thing to go to Henley and so forth. All these are beautiful traditions.  

INT: Yeah. Well and, and bumping is not part of US rowing either, right.  

RES: No.  

INT: So that’s what I had on my mind, yeah.  

RES: Yeah, yeah. Well that has to do with it being not too many lanes available for rowing, right. So you’ve got to be single file. But it’s a good thing, it’s an interesting adaptation, you know, and it works.  

INT: Mmm. And who was the Warden of Rhodes House during your time in Oxford?  

RES: Oh boy. His first name was Sir Harvey but I’m sorry I don’t-  

INT: Oh that’s okay.  

RES: I should remember that. I’m embarrassed now that I don’t remember.  

INT: That’s okay. Did you have much interaction with him?  

RES: No, I mean nothing personal you know other than the normal sort of public functions and stuff. You know friendly and so forth and you’d see him in hall, that’s another beauty of hall is the Warden and the whatever Dons who were in residence are sitting there with you at the high table. Yeah. So, so you get to know them a little bit.  

INT: Yeah. And- 

RES: Meals are better than classrooms, you know, in terms of some personal interaction.  

INT: Oh certainly. And were your studies in Oxford two years, 1962 to ’64?  

RES: Yes.  

INT: Okay.  

RES: Yes.  

INT: And at that time were you- Would you say you were thinking about what could be next? Or were you- I’m conscious this is something, you know, a very different type of study and subject than you had been immersed in previously. So conscious you might have been just enjoying that at its fullest as well.  

RES: Yeah I think pretty early I focused more on economics than the other two. You know philosophy I had done a lot of already and this was sort of icing on that cake if you will. And politics, you know, interesting but terribly different systems and so forth. So economics and I was, had started thinking about law school. You know pretty early on in the two years probably. Again on the theory that if you want to understand how things work, you know, it’s important to understand how the law works.  

INT: And were you- So were you then applying for law school during your second year in Oxford?  

RES: Yes. Yes.  

INT: You were, okay, okay. And so you ended up pursuing law school at Yale, is that right?  

RES: Right, right.  

INT: And how was that experience? Did you go right from Oxford to Yale for law school?  

RES: Yes. Yes.  

INT: Okay. Yeah-  

RES: You know applying to Harvard, Yale, UVA and so forth, the Penn. So kind of the top of the list if you will. And I ended up picking Yale on the theory that it’s a little smaller, it’s a little more personalised. And this probably was incorrect, you know, prejudice but I thought Harvard was a little bit more directly oriented to the business markets, you know, Wall Street in New York and so forth, which was not true at that point but that was the impression I had. Whereas Yale you can sort of, again waffling the decision making, to broaden the blanket. So that’s how I ended up at Yale and again never regretted that.  

INT: Yeah. And what- Did you have a sense of the kind of law that you wanted to focus on at Yale? Or did that come later as you started your career?  

RES: I knew- I did want to understand the economic markets, the stock markets and so forth. So corporate and securities law was, pretty early on was my focus. You know I didn’t want to do family law. I didn’t want to do trusts and estates. Of course in the first year you take all these courses, you know, torts, contracts, etc. etc. So you get to decide that during the first year. And then, but by the second year I was pretty well focused on corporate and securities and that side of the house.  

INT: Great. And did- What did the first years of your career look like after law school?  

[00:40:04] 

RES: Well I had the choice of Philadelphia or New York, you know, essentially. And chose to go back to Philadelphia. And my dear friend <Name>, John <Name> my classmate at Oxford, the guy I mentioned that had done his first year at UVA sort of never forgave me for not going to New York, back with him. So, and you know we, we’d had good records and so were able to apply to whichever law firms. So I ended up in one of the large Philadelphia law firms out of personal preference I guess for, you know, where to live. And it was a firm called Saul Ewing that still exists. And you know known for business and banking particularly. And some investment banking type- So the same kind of practice that one would have in New York but a better lifestyle I thought, right. And again that proved to be true, so we have a lot of luck rolling along the way here.  

INT: And sounds like your, you know, your family had deep roots in Philadelphia at that time. And I know that you continued to grow those roots throughout your career through the work that you did in Philadelphia.  

RES: Yes. You know and Philadelphia’s large enough if you will. It’s, many of our cities are kind of unmanageable or have grown so, right. But we’ll get into some of that when we talk about later I think. But New York, you know, is- I mean I- Other than Fordham, right, and being in the Bronx in Lincoln Center, I didn’t feel any particular attachment I guess to New York City. Whereas in Philadelphia you know you had some roots.  

INT: Yeah. And how long- How many years did you spend at Saul Ewing?  

RES: So I, I’ll get this slightly wrong but I guess about 15.  

INT: Oh wow!  

RES: And I had- Ended up being head of the banking and securities department of the firm. And I had commercial banking clients and investment banking clients. And among them was a firm called Bessemer Securities which is the sister company, that really the parent company of Bessemer Trust Company, this is the family of Henry Phipps who was one of the founders of US Steel, right. So an old New York family fortune. And Bessemer Securities is the family money. And so they had a private equity practice before private equity had been dubbed private equity. You know we called it leverage buyouts at that point. And so I represented them on various acquisitions as a lawyer. And after a few years of this they approached me and said, we’d like you to take a leave from your law firm and come and work for us full time continuing to do these leverage buyouts. So that’s what I did and I have been on leave from Saul Ewing ever since by the way. Still part of the pension plan and, you know, etc.  

INT: Wow. So that’s what- So it sounds like you had some familiarity with kind of private equity work through- And then that’s what inspired them to invite you to join them.  

RES: Well I had represented them doing acquisitions. And you know they said it might be better to have you come as a full time partner. But, and I was doing more than legal work. In fact I was not doing that, we retained other lawyers at that point. And I had one main partner and if you know the private equity business, the so-called fee structure is 2% management fee per annum of the funds under management including the existing holdings. And then funds ready to be invested. And 20% of the capital gains goes to the private equity firm. So that’s, we had that, that was our arrangement with Bessemer. But no need to go run around raising new funds all the time, running to all the public pension funds and you know around the country and the world to raise the next fund. We’d just go to the- The fourth Friday of every month there would be the Bessemer Securities board meeting and we’d go down the street, we kept ourselves one block away, that was my partner’s theory, my older partner’s theory, you want to be one block away, not too far but not too close, you know, and, and get the allocation and we were never turned down. So it was a way more efficient way to do private equity provided you didn’t mess it up, you know. And we didn’t mess it up so we had a terrific run and then my partner retired and that’s when I came back to Philadelphia with my ill-gotten gains and started SCP.  

INT: So was that, you mentioned going back to Philadelphia. So I didn’t realise, did your private equity work bring you to New York at that time? Were you- 

RES: Oh yeah I lived in New York during the week, yeah.  

INT: Okay. Okay.  

RES: Yeah. Not on the weekends.  

INT: Okay. And what year was that that your partner retired?  

RES: Well let’s- You’re holding me- Excuse me- I can’t quite remember.  

INT: Roughly.  

RES: So I think I did that let’s say for 15 years.  

INT: Oh wow.  

RES: So the mid-nineties.  

INT: Okay. Okay.  

RES: We started SCP.  

INT: You and that same partner started SCP together? No.  

RES: No, no. He took retirement and I came down to start SCP with a guy called Pete Musser who was the head of Safeguard Scientifics which was a hot technology publicly traded New York Stock Exchange technology venture company really. And he was an old friend and he said, “You can’t retire, you have to do something.” So the S in SCP stands for, stood for Safeguard. And the C is Churchill, so the Safeguard Churchill Partners.  

INT: Okay. Interesting. And- 

RES: And the Safeguard story becomes kind of a sad story but at that point they were, you know, the hottest thing in town if you will for doing technology oriented LBOs and venture capital. And then we at SCP did the same kind of mix with, now the physics comes back into play, right, with a little more emphasis on technology and, you know, old middle- Private equity had become very competitive by then, right, because everybody realised what a good thing this was. So in the eighties it was much less competitive and therefore way more lucrative.  

INT: That’s fascinating, your mention of your physics background coming back into play at this time. And I, you know, I’m conscious too that I believe that much of the work that you have done in venture capital in the life sciences area, if I’m not mistaken.  

RES: Yeah.  

INT: And, yeah, curious what attracted you to that area.  

RES: Well of course I had a lot of friends, good Jewish friends both in New York and Philadelphia, you know, from among my old friends going back to West Oak Lane right, from that onward. And, and from the law practice and so forth. And so they started to tell me, you need to make, go on one of our missions to Israel. And as you know in the diaspora there is a huge amount of support, highly necessary from the diaspora to the State of Israel. And a book you should read if you haven’t is Churchill and the Jews. You know harks back to how Churchill interrelated with the Jewish community during World War Two. And how that eventuated in the foundation in ’47 of the State of Israel. So I went on a few of those missions and then came back and said to Pete Musser and we had a few other partners there in suburban Philadelphia, you know, “We should treat Israel as our Silicon Valley,” right, because Silicon Valley was heavily shopped if you will for early stage technology investments by the venture funds. But not everybody dared to, you know, venture to Israel for a lot of the obvious reasons. But I thought there positive reasons to support this, you know, as a very historically necessary, you know, adventure if you will, the whole State of Israel. So that’s what we did. And Pete agreed and of course Pete was a wonderful Renaissance man until things turned south in his life. And I don’t want to get into that. But, so we, that’s what we started to do. And if you go and look at the sciences in Israel, right, there is biology, the life sciences, both pharma and medical devices, right, diagnostics and stuff essentially. And then going all the way up to defence.  

[00:50:11] 

So we didn’t go near defence and never have but we, with my physics background I knew enough to sort of know the difference you know when you saw something that made sense as opposed to- And really was innovative and importantly patentable, right, that’s very important obviously to protect these young companies because by definition they’re under-capitalised. And it’s first to market, capture the flag, that sort of thing. So you need whatever protection you can get. And so the proliferation of highly patentable new ideas coming out of Israel was remarkable and still is. Still is. So that’s what we did. So SCP would raise three different funds, the first two were larger and much more private equity oriented. And the third fund we, for many reasons, I think good reasons, put in the charter that 70% of the technologies would be Israeli. And we’ve, you know, obviously stuck to that as part of the charter and had some, you know, very well-known innovations, like Waze, I don’t know if you want bragging rights about some of that.  

INT: Please.  

RES: Well we invested in the first round of Ways that came out of the Technion Incubator and you probably know that Technion is the MIT of Israel. So and they have an incubator for graduates and professors at the Technion who want to start something. And this is now I guess 15 years ago when GPS and the satellites first became available, one of the Technion professors, “Wouldn’t it be good to have a navigation device for your car that tells you where you are and can collect data about traffic and which way you should go among the 12 ways to get to where you’re going,” right. So we invested in that through the Incubator and it soon, because of the patents and the protection of these patents, got sold to Google. Soon was five or six years later. So it’s now part of Google. But you know you still say Ways and still has the brand name, and still has a couple of the features that are not in the Google lab. But it’s owned by Google and so we made a huge, you know, capital gain on that. And then just continuing the bragging rights, right, we invested in and went public with the first exoskeleton for paraplegics.  

INT: Wow.  

RES: So this was again 10 or so years ago, it’s the exoskeleton, so literally Biblically you know stand up and walk, right. Arise and walk for paraplegics who had not been able to walk. That’s now technologically outmoded as we get into, you know, all the automation and AI and so forth. But for many years it was the only thing available for paraplegics around the world. And we did some pharma and discovered the cure for Dupuytren’s contracture, that’s people whose hand contracts and is not usable, right. And they had tried various surgical ways to fix that but it’s a chemically-based disorder and so the pharma solution was way better. And that’s still in the market. You might see that advertised, it’s called Xiaflex if you’re watching CNN or something, acquired by one of the big pharma companies. So that was nice. Now we have, some of this is non-public so I won’t share any of the non-public, but we have a solution for the aortic arch repair, you know, the aorta’s like a cane that comes out of the top of the heart, and the aortic arch at the top has three or four important branches that then disperse throughout the body in a north and south if you will. So feed the brain and the lower limbs and the organs and so forth. And when people have a damage to that, it’s a very- It’s open heart surgery, a very difficult thing to repair surgically. So our guys in Israel discovered a percutaneous solution. So this, this aortic arch repair stent, think of it as a big stent if you will, but it replaces the top part of the cane and it can be inserted percutaneously through the groin, through the blood vessels in the groin. And that’s currently under option to one of the big guys. So I expect next time you and I talk it’ll have been acquired and I can brag about it. I mean I’ve already bragged too much but yeah so stuff like that. And lots of failures I should say. You know venture capital is a hits kind of, like the music business right. For every hit you have five or so bombs. And it can be very heartbreaking and so forth. And I guess our main reputation and so forth is being supporters of management but critical supporters, right. Knowing the difference when they are making mistakes and when they are not and so forth. So it represents a lot of responsibility, you know, because these are people, right and they have their dreams invested in these companies as well. So physics is, you know, it’s close enough to go back to my father’s comment, right.  

INT: Thank you so much for sharing that Win, it’s really fascinating the ways in which your career built on itself. And I was curious if you would mind reflecting a little bit on just the, the difference between your first being at Saul Ewing and being at a firm and then being at Bessemer. And then really being, starting your own venture with a few partners and what that experience was like at that stage in your career.  

RES: Well it’s frankly not that much different. I mean it’s a partnership sort of my approach is to have partners that one can trust and who have good judgement and so forth. And that was true in all three gigs if you will, right. If you pick your partners, you know, that’s sort of the key to having successful ventures. So it, it- And this is not, you know, the sort of pyramidal top down imperious management style.  

INT: And that is actually exactly leads beautifully to my next question Win because I was reflecting on this when you were sharing about your relationships with entrepreneurs and some of the companies that you’ve invested in. And you know I thought the reflection that you shared about, you know, recognising that they have their dreams invested in this as well was really lovely. And curious if you would mind sharing a little bit about your own personal leadership philosophy. You alluded to the kind of non-hierarchical nature of that perhaps a moment ago and I was wondering if you would mind expanding on that.  

RES: Right. Well you know it sort of puts me in mind of the Rhodes selection process which I am still, as you know, still doing in Jerusalem every November.  

INT: Yeah.  

RES: That’s a whole separate story but every- The powers that be at Rhodes House were convinced 10 years ago that Israel should qualify as one of the countries that’s a former colony and largely English speaking, which I think were the conditions specified in the Will. And I was kind of part of that, peripherally part of that conversation. And then the people at Rhodes House said, now you’re such a big talker you should go and do the selection process. Help with the selection process every year. And I said, it’ll be a privilege for me, right. And that’s been true ever since. And I’m superannuated now so I should be rotated, you know. This year I was the [unclear 00:59:25] but then somebody had to- One of the now pregnant return Rhodes Scholars that we had picked four or five years ago had to drop out at the last minute. So but anyway that’s a little bit of a diversion. So, so what do we in the Rhodes selection process is you get way beyond the resume, right. There is the resume, that’s important. There is the essay which is important. And there is the necessity to select from among some pretty homogenously highly qualified wonderful young people.  

[01:00:06] 

So it’s, it’s heartbreaking in many ways but a great privilege to do this in all the selection committees by the way, you know all around the world. So one of the great things about the Scholarship is the vision that, you know, it entailed at the time and has continued to represent thanks to people like yourself. So and then we insist that we have met in person in a reasonable period of time that people end up being selected, so that’s the reason for the in person interviews, which in the case of Jerusalem is two days in Jerusalem when they come in from all the universities around Israel. So the first part of the privilege is I get to read these incredible resumes of the young people being turned out by the Israeli universities, largely Jewish, some Arab by the way, Arab Israelis, right. And now probably 50%, 40% women. So it’s totally non-chauvinistic. It’s, you know, completely accords with our principles at the world’s fight, you know, the Rhodes House, the Rhodes idea. So and then have to select down from a much higher number. In our case we do 12 for two days in Israel, in Jerusalem, right. And have to pick two from among the 12 which is very, very difficult and you know there is a lot of comedy on the committee and deference to each other’s views. But it still becomes a very close call. You know, so it’s a privilege and it’s very, very sad to see the faces of those who don’t get selected. And these are as nearly qualified because at this level of things you are making a judgement call that there are no guarantees about it, there is some uncertainty to whether, the rectitude of it right. So now to go back to your actual question, this is how get partners in business or people to run the businesses you invest in. It’s the same idea. And you do make mistakes by the way. I don’t mean in the Rhodes process, I don’t think we’ve made mistakes but in the venture business you make mistakes. You know you get it wrong. But I insist, the funds are largely invested now so we’re not doing new deals to speak of. But I insist that we get to know the people in charge, you know, usually the founders of these companies. And so where you can look them in the eye and have a feel for the people, not just the business disciplines. And not just the value of the technology. Market value right, eventual market value of the technology. So it’s the same thing in life I think in general, right.  

INT: Yeah. That’s really, it’s such a beautiful parallel and I, you know, we’re so grateful for your leadership in selections Win. And I would love to, you know, I have a couple of questions related to selection specifically that I would love to ask you. But before we- 

RES: Well I- While we’re at this I want to volunteer for Florida so I don’t have to take these long flights. If you ever need somebody.  

INT: Thank you. But before we transition to- Because I am conscious that in addition to your incredible professional accomplishments you have had incredible accomplishments in your non-profit service including within the Rhodes Trust. But before we transition to that I was wondering if you would mind, you know, as you reflect on your kind of professional journey, if you would mind sharing what experiences of that you have found most rewarding. And perhaps most challenging as well.  

RES: Well to share in people’s successful dreams. I think that’s the most rewarding part of it. And to, you know, help even getting them over hurdles and on the way because there is- These are always highly competitive fields right. So if you go back to some of the examples, I mean in effect you are competing with all the research departments and big pharma in the case of Dupuytren’s right. Or you are competing with all the people at Ventronic. These end up being those acquire us because we beat them to it, right. So it’s, it’s a hell of an adventure, there is- It’s better than horseracing because it’s more predictable but it’s along those lines, right. So, it involves paying a lot of attention. I mean it’s, from my viewpoint it’s very diverting and occupies you, right. There is no such thing as I’m going to look at the <Name> and see how I’m doing. So I love it, you know. And my greatest fear in life is retirement. Or really irrelevance is, if I put it bluntly, for these eyes only, you know, I don’t tell everybody this. But you know the world’s fight is a long term deal, you know. This is not a war, it’s not a cold war, it’s even longer than that. So this is something that I think we in the Rhodes community can be proud of because we, we have the luxury of taking the longest view of things. And that’s damned important in this world particularly at the current moment, when a load of other, Churchill, again the real Churchill said democracy has a limited life, do you remember this? 200 years because if you have one person, one vote it gradually gets diluted by the ignorant and the bigoted and the prejudiced, right. So that’s not exactly elitist but along those lines I think, yeah we believe in equality but it can end up with mediocrity or worse. So there’s plenty in the world’s fight, you know, that we can sleep but only eight hours at night, right. And we can’t go to sleep at the switch here. Any of us, you included, I’m talking to all of us, you know, collectively.  

INT: Yeah. And I think that’s a beautiful segue Win because, you know, not only through- I think about the element of the world’s fight through the technological advances that you have advocated for but also in your non-profit work and service and, and educational leadership. And, and I was wondering if you mind sharing with us a little bit about the Young Scholars Charter School and the, is it Gesu School?  

RES: Gesu. The Italian for Jesus.  

INT: Gesu, yeah. Would you mind sharing with us about those journeys?  

RES: Yeah. Yeah of course. I mean the context of this Jamie if you will is I think one of the key secrets of the American dream is universal good education for all, right. And ideally free education for all. And it’s one of the great failures of American democracy in my humble opinion. But now to go back to the specific story. So when I went to the Prep it’s in a building in North Philadelphia, in what we now would call the inner city, right. It had 17th and Girard Avenue, so if you know the geography. And surrounded by poor neighbourhoods. And Gesu, if you go back to the nineteenth century was founded by the Jesuits. It has a beautiful kind of basilica. And then the Prep school was, you know, an old brick building next door to the church. And so when I had come back and I’ll get the dates again wrong on this but let’s say the late nineties, I’m sitting in my office in suburban Philadelphia at SCP now, and the phone rings and it’s a guy who is now a Jesuit priest but had the year behind me at the Prep. You know he was a friendly, now a Jesuit called George Bur, and he says, “Win it’s George.” Great and of course I hadn’t spoken to him since whenever we got out of the Prep, whenever the hell that was. And he says, “I’d like you to come- I’d like to invite you to come to lunch in the building because the old building where the Prep was is now our Catholic parish grade school.” And when we there we used to play basketball on the roof and there was this big wrought iron cage that covered the place so the balls would not escape and I guess for L and I reasons.  

[01:10:04] 

And he said, “That cage got condemned some years ago and we’d like you and Ellen,” Ellen is my dear wife, “to consider giving us the money to put the cage back on the roof.” So I said, “George great to hear you and you know what day next week?” And so I went down the very next week and we went up to the roof and I looked around and said, “Looks the same as when we were last here except now there is no cage.” Still covered with soot and basketball courts and painted lines and so forth. But it’s the top of the grade school now because the Prep had succeeded enough to build its own building kind of next door. So I said, “George this is a parish grade school, right, Catholic parish model.” So tuition model and very few Catholics in the school, very few Catholic families in the surrounding neighbourhood. So I said, “Before we have lunch I’d like to take a look at the school and parish’s books.” He says, “The books? You came to look at the cage.” And I said, “Come on George, you know, this is me.” So we look at the books and I say, “George, you know, you’re within a year or two of insolvency with both the parish, particularly the school because you continue to take the kids who can’t afford to pay tuition, right. And you continue to teach them sort of in the Catholic tradition now with IHM nuns who are gradually thinning out by the way as are the Jesuits. And you can’t afford it. So we need to privatise this school.” And he said, “Well what does that mean, privatise?” I say, “We need to turn it into its own non-profit and we’ll go around town and raise money and build an endowment and subsidise the tuitions basically.” He said, “Well you know okay. I trust you and if you say this might work let’s try it.” So that is now 31 years ago and the school is surviving and thriving and it’s a beacon in North Philadelphia, right. So and I think the endowment, don’t hold me hard to the number but it’s got a 35 million dollar endowment for, you know, K through 8 grade school in one of the worst sections of Philadelphia. And it is a beacon for the neighbourhood and, you know, very proud of our graduates and we keep track of them and so forth. And I have since, you know, kicked myself upstairs or whatever, I have been succeeded very, very well as both Chair and on the board. So this has its own succession of leadership now that will go on for a long time. Then five or six years later I get on the train one day, still practising law. No, I was not practising law. I got on the train one day and there on the train to go to New York is one of my Yale law school classmates who has since become a plaintiffs lawyer in Philadelphia. A guy named Stanley Wolfe. And he says, “You know I have been doing this plaintiffs work in contingent fee and all this kind of stuff for all these years.” He had a very powerful partner, one of the best known sort of accident law firms if you will. “And I want to do something more honourable with the rest of my life.” And he says, “I just opened the Philadelphia Bulletin once again and Pennsylvania just passed this new thing called a Charter School.” So he said, “What about I resign from my firm and become CEO and you become Chairman of the first Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Chartered grade school?” So that becomes Young Scholars, right. You know patently on the face of it a good idea, right. So that’s a beacon on the other side of North Philadelphia. So the other side of Broad Street. And pre-Covid I can’t say it, now it’s the best of the Charter grade schools in Pennsylvania but academically ranked the best pre-Covid because of rigour and the application of these thoughts about, you know, having people in the classroom and up and down the hall who care about the mission. You know and the mission is, getting back to the American dream, this kind of education and rigour should be available to everybody free. So you know Charter School is a public school, right. But the difference is we get 80 cents on the dollar from the public sources, state and a little bit of federal, but mostly state and city. And we have to raise the 20 cents and but we get to be in charge of the place. So it’s a non-profit, it’s run by a board of directors which I was Chair of until last year, again got myself succeeded, now I’m Vice-Chair I guess. And gradually will fade away of course. And it’s back to being very much on the uptick academically state-wide. And these kids, it’s a beacon in the sense that they can- It’s a lottery selection process but the families who know enough to get their child’s name in the can for the drawing, have some knowledgeable, knowledge of the reputation of the different Charter Schools. Ours was the first but now there’s 25 or so, you know, very good Charter Schools in Philadelphia. So, and so our kids come from 31 zip codes all around the city. So contrast one is the neighbourhood, yeah still on the Catholic school model, some Jesuit and so forth. And the other is a public school that’s run the way all the public schools should be run but are not. And somewhere along the way I was appointed by Governor Casey as Head of the Pennsylvania Public School Teachers Pension Fund, Chairman of the Finance Committee, not Chairman of the board. And got to know the whole rubric if you will of the public school teachers union and so forth, unions. Lots and lots of very good people but the organisation is messed up. Some of the motivations are messed up and they can’t deal with the bureaucracies etc. and curricula and there’s a whole lot of reform that’s necessary in my opinion. Some very good people, you know, are being forced into untenable situations and can’t realise their own dreams of being educated, educating these wonderful young people. So a very long story. [overtalking 01:17:23] 

INT: No, no it’s so inspiring Win and it’s really- It’s really interesting that you know this incredible decades long impact that you’ve gone on to have in education through both Catholic education and Charter School education, through a truly saying yes to these opportunities that presented themselves to you. Just, you know, the, the idea that you visited your former school and saw the opportunity there and asked the questions that led to this incredible impact. And then similarly this, this serendipitous passing on the train with a former law school colleague and saying yes to the idea of leaning into transforming education. It’s just really, really inspiring. And particularly all of that on top of your professional work.  

RES: Well this is America, you know.  

INT: Yeah.  

RES: If you think of what’s on the Statue of Liberty and, you know, all of us got here by immigration, right, if people would only remember that. And, you know, no names to be mentioned. But there is- The world’s fight is not nearly over Jamie. And you know things go up and down right. I think history comes in cycles. And we’ve just been through what to me was, was a very, very good, you know, 40 or 50 years politically in terms of leadership. You know with some sort of mini ups and downs. But now we are facing some really serious negative forces. So none of us can afford to sleep more than the eight hours, right.  

INT: And you are putting- 

RES: [overtalking 01:19:11] at a place like Rhodes House which, you know, it’s the same mission right. The world’s fight and being men and women for others etc. etc. And preserving democracy, right and having knowledgeable citizens who are in a position, put in a position to lead a decent life and realise their own dreams. So that’s really our job to make it possible and to know it when you see it. Yeah. Feasibility.  

INT: It’s so true. And you have put those other 16 hours a day to very good use for- 

RES: Well not always. Not always.  

INT: Would you mind sharing Win a little bit about- We spoke about this a little bit earlier in our conversation but your work with Fordham and Georgetown as well? Because I, I just love your, the kind of bookends of your service at the primary school education level even and then, and then through college.  

[01:20:13] 

RES: Yeah. Yeah I mean much less influential I would say, I mean because both places have been and during my tenure on the boards were on a perfectly good course. So, you know, not major course corrections to be seen or recommended. And they are both still very much in the traditions that they are supposed to be I think. Tim Healy by the way left Fordham to become President of Georgetown, right. And he and I had a big fight about Patrick Ewing because, you know, he was not, as you would expect, not pro, sort of high-profile sports except as a means to an end. So Patrick was a wonderful recruit in the Georgetown basketball team in that era, given the state of our country and what people, you know, broadly pay attention to, having a number one basketball team is what in my opinion elevated Georgetown in everybody’s eyes. And of course being in the capital, nations capital, and so forth and over the years thanks to people like Tim Healy and his Presidency, the academics are now in the front ranks. So Fordham’s always been in the front ranks by the way but in the provincial way that I said, if you’re in New York City, you know what we’re talking about. But you know if you are Duluth maybe you don’t. So but you do know about Georgetown and the Ivys and so forth. So, so the importance of these educational institutions developing Renaissance people, I’ll put it to try to summarise, not narrow or bigoted or prejudiced or self-serving, is to realise the American dream, whether they’re private or public. You know so the public universities many of which are highly distinguished I think but they need more guidance now than maybe they have for some time kind of across the board and leadership, and they are tough jobs. To be President of a university, it’s a very, very tough job. So in other words I had- I don’t want to say vacations, but I, I was much less influential because I didn’t think anything much was necessary. But privileged to be there and, you know, added my voice as appropriate to board discussions and committees and so forth. And, and including admiration, right. It’s okay to admire when it is working. Yeah.  

INT: Absolutely. We have talked a little bit about the Rhodes community and your selection service. And you have remained a tremendous friend to the Rhodes community through your recent leadership as a class leader, your longstanding service as a selection committee member as well as through your enduring support. And we are so grateful Win and I was curious if you would mind sharing a little bit about what has inspired you to stay connected to the Rhodes community in those ways?  

RES: You know I guess it’s a lot of what we have covered as we went along the way. I mean to develop a community of people around the world who understand that one of the main purposes of life is the world’s fight, is to make it better for everybody else. And to, to gain an understanding of the systems they are working, in which they are working. And to be able to influence them in proper directions because nature abhors a vacuum, right. If we don’t get in there and do the stuff that we do, the vacuums get occupied by ignorance. You know I guess I’m mixing my metaphors here. But so that’s, that’s why. I mean to me this is sort of the most obvious part of what I should be paying attention to. You know the others are means to the ends. But this has been one of the most incredible visions that anybody ever had to establish this kind of a scholarship. I mean you can criticise here and there obviously right. And wouldn’t it be nice if it were available more broadly and wouldn’t it be nice if it had more money and of course and so forth. But you know there is- If you look at the degree of inequality today, there is a huge sort of top heavy situation with where the world’s wealth is. A lot of this driven by technology by the way. And there are a lot of people out there looking for the proper mission, you know, what is their life really about? Or should be. And then there are a lot who are not by the way. I mean they’re looking to buy the next [s/l Bentley 01:25:41] or airplane and stuff, right. So this waxing and waning that we were talking about is going on and we’re, you’re much younger thank God, and they say as you go into the next period of time where I think about my, or our children, Ellen and I our children and grandchildren, you know, there is stuff that we can still do to make things more likely to be better. I say more likely, right because there are no sure things. I have a coaster that Ellen puts under my coffee every morning, it’s a quote from Churchill, the real Churchill. And it says, “Never, never, never give up” right.  

INT: It’s true, it’s all we can do.  

RES: So really read that book Churchill and the Jews if you haven’t read that. And everybody, your colleagues, I recommend, it’s my book recommendation of the week. So-  

INT: I have jotted it down. Yeah I appreciate the recommendation.  

RES: Good.  

INT: I would love to ask you a few questions Win as we kind of move the final chapter of our interview about the scholarships. And the first being what impact would you say that the Rhodes Scholarship had on your life?  

RES: Oh it’s huge. It’s huge. You know it’s, it’s- It may be the world’s best credential. And therefore, you know properly applied it provides one an entrée and opportunity to get in the right places to do something meaningful, right. I think it probably is the world’s best credential. I mean there is the Fulbright and we think of all these other things, so it’s, it’s assured me- Because of the way it’s been governed and managed by you guys and your predecessors, the reputation is well earned I think, right. Saying it’s seldom been abused by Rhodes Scholars. So it’s an incredible tradition. You know it’s just, I always do I have imposter syndrome, you know, what the hell am I doing here? And I’m serious, I do. So that’s why it’s- As are more obvious than all these other things that I have done. And you know I wish I could do more but it’s been pretty well managed, you know. You guys, I notice some changes in more sort of active, activism if you will. And that’s good and important and it still really works, however much the world vacillates and stuff. So we’re doing the right thing here.  

INT: Well and you, you have fought the world’s fight Win in such, such inspiring ways as I am, you know, as I am sure that many of the students who have impacted would say. So please- 

RES: Well I say to myself every morning, Ellen criticises me for this too, she says, “You know you live in the present. I mean what is this is living in the present?” I said, “What should I do? Live in the past?” you know. So what, what should we do today to further the world’s fight, you know. So again back to relevancy and stuff, not that I’m in denial about mortality, right. But it will come in its own time, I’m not going to pay attention. There’ll be no welcome committee you know. 

INT: Well I, you know, I think that that the idea of living in the present is actually very related to another question that I would be grateful for your reflections on around the scholarship, in that, you know, we are approaching the 125th anniversary of the scholarships in a few years which is a great opportunity to reflect on the history of the scholarships, which is part of our hope for this oral history project. But it’s also a wonderful opportunity to look ahead to the next chapter of the Rhodes Scholarships. And so I would be curious to know what your hopes for the future of the Rhodes Scholarship would be.  

[01:30:01] 

RES: Well we don’t want to suffer any diminished relevance. I mean I think that kind of summarises it. And to keep up with the principal drivers in the world, right, is an important part of the project. So it’s, you know, sort of trying to foretell the immediate and midterm futures on all fronts, right. Maybe starting with technology and politics. Yeah. So and how do you do that? I mean all of us probably spend a lot of time trying to stay current every day. And you know your leadership, it’s a hell of a responsibility. But that’s how I would define it.  

INT: Wonderful. And then I would love to know Win if you would have any advice that you would offer to today’s Rhodes Scholars.  

RES: To, you mean the current crop?  

INT: Mhmm-hm.  

RES: I’ve pretty well talked myself out here Jamie. I think, yeah-  

INT: Well I think there is- I think there is lots of good pearls of wisdom in the conversation already. And I am so grateful to you Win for taking the time to participate in this oral history.   

RES: Oh, it’s a pleasure. It’s been a pleasure Jamie and by the way I think it’s a great project.  

INT: Oh thank you.  

RES: It’s a great way to encapsulate all the stuff we’ve been talking about because it’s reflected in the lives of those you are going to be interviewing.  

INT: Yeah.  

RES: So it’s a privilege to have been included, really.  

INT: Well thank you, thank you Win. And is there- I would love to ask if there is anything else that you might like to share before we stop our recording?  

RES: I don’t think so Jamie.  

INT: Okay.  

RES: But again if you have a vacancy in Florida I’ll be glad to serve.  

INT: Well I will pause our recording there.  

[Audio ends: 01:32:18]