The Cavalier daily :: Wednesday, October 1, 1969 :: University of Virginia Library

In a decision put on record yesterday
afternoon, a three-judge federal court
ruled that the University must submit a
formal plan for coeducation to the panel
by October 31.

The court would not rule on the
constitutionality of University admissions
policies until it has had a chance to study
a definite set of proposals on the admission of
women to the College of Arts and Sciences.

Suit Filed

The suit involves four women who charge
that they were originally denied admission to
the College solely on the basis of sex. The
American Civil Liberties Union has been acting
on behalf of the four in a suit originally filed
last May by Charlottesville attorney John Lowe
and Alexandria attorney Philip J. Hirschkop.

Yesterday's decision reads in part, "...it is
ordered that... The president of the University
shall report to Judge Robert R. Merhige, Jr., a
member of this court, the plan finally adopted
by the University of Virginia, and a report of
progress and implementation of it, by October
31, 1969. Plaintiff shall file any objections
thereto within thirty days of the date of filing
of said plan."

Temporary Injunction

At a preliminary hearing earlier this month,
a state court issued a temporary injunction
forcing the University to accept applicants
without regard to sex. The four women then
gained admission to the University. Of them,
only one, Virginia Anne Scott, is enrolled in the
College. Mrs. Jo Anne Kirstein and Mrs. Nancy
Jaffe have entered the School of General
Studies. Nancy L. Anderson is awaiting the
final court decision.

Yesterday's ruling, released by the office of
U.S. District Judge Robert R. Merhige in
Richmond, called for all exceptions to the
formal plan to be submitted within 30 days of
the October 31 date. Shortly thereafter a
hearing will be held for the purpose of reaching
a final decision in the case.

The court's decision said, "It further
appearing to the court, but without deciding
the question, that by analogy to the development
of constitutional law in the civil rights
area that forced separation and so-called equal
but separate educational facilities are contrary
to the due process and equal protection clauses
of the 14th Amendment, and that, as a matter
of principle, women are entitled to enjoy the
same educational facilities, that are provided by
the state for men, and cannot be denied access
to the same consistent with the Constitution..."

Long-Range Effects

The final order is expected to have
long-range effects on University admissions
policies.

Monday the three-judge court met privately
with both sides for several hours in an effort to
reach a settlement without a formal hearing. No
agreement could be reached on the wording of
the settlement.

An afternoon hearing followed at which Mr.
Hirschkop argued that the constitutionality of
the University's admissions policies should be
decided as soon as possible.

Mr. Hirschkop told the court Monday that
by delaying its decision it "would cost another
year" in the implementation of coeducation at
the University.

Hereford Testimony

At Monday's hearing, University Provost
Frank L. Hereford told the panel that a
proposal to inaugurate coeducation in the
College has been drawn up but not yet adopted
by the Board of Visitors.

Mr. Hirschkop argued that the proposal
referred to includes a quota system and should
be declared unconstitutional under the equal
protection clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Judge Merhige then commented that the
proposal is "just a suggestion, not a
plan...(University officials) could improve it."

There had been speculation by persons
involved in the case that the three judges might
choose to wait until the University had adopted
a formal plan before ruling on the
constitutionality of the admissions policy. A
spokesman for the ACLU office in Richmond
told The Cavalier Daily yesterday that the
court's decision to wait "was very much what
we expected."

When granting Mr. Hirschkop 15 minutes to
argue why the court should decide the
constitutional question Monday, Circuit Court
Judge Braxton R. Craven, Jr., chief of the
three-judge panel, said "the merits of the
(coeducation) plan will be heard in November
unless you can convince us there is reason to
act earlier."

Coeds Reluctant

Mr. Hirschkop said that potential University
coeds would be reluctant to apply before a
ruling is announced since many high schools
will only provide three transcripts of records
for colleges and college applications should be
made as early as possible.

Other testimony heard included an opinion
that Mary Washington College was far inferior
to the University's Grounds.

Professor Kate Millett of Barnard College,
author of "Token Learning," a study of female
educational institutions, testified that the
University was superior to Mary Washington in
faculty quality, ratio of faculty-student
enrollment, financing, curriculum and "quality
of educational experience."

She noted that U.Va. taught 58 English
courses, Mary Washington, 29. In her own
specialty, Nineteenth Century Literature, U.
Va. had six courses, Mary Washington had two,
she said.

"U. Va. has a much more adequate
offering," she said, "and a far better faculty" to
teach it. "The Mary Washington English faculty
is deplorable by comparison."