University of Virginia Library

Coed Admittance To College
Forced By Court Injunction

By Rick Pearson
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

Virginia Anne Scott is not a typical
member of the 1969-1970 first-year class.
She is one of two girls enrolled as a
first-year undergraduate in the College of
Arts and Sciences.

The series of events which has
culminated in the acceptance of Miss
Scott into the previously all-male College
has been long and involved, and the
present situation is by no means final.
But for now, the fact remains that Miss Scott is
in the College, she is registered for a normal
course schedule, and she is attending classes.

The immediate cause of this sudden change
in University policy is a temporary injunction,
issued by United States District Judge Robert
R. Merhige on behalf of the plaintiffs
September 8, ordering the University, as
defendant, to consider the applications for
admission to the fall session of the College of
three women, Miss Scott, Mrs. Jo Anne
Kirstein, and Mrs. Nancy Jaffe.

Irregardless Of Sex

The injunction also cited that "said
defendants are further enjoined to consider said
applications without regard to the applicants'
sex, and to admit said applicants should they
meet the necessary requirements as prescribed
for all other applicants to the said college."

Earlier in the summer, the women, represented
in court by attorneys Phillip J.
Hirschkop of Alexandria and John C. Lowe of
Charlottesville, both of the American Civil
Liberties Union, had been granted a hearing
before a special three-judge panel of the federal
district court, for September 29.

This special court convenes when the
constitutionality of a state statute is challenged
in a federal court, and it will decide the issue.
However, the women could not wait until that
late date, more than two weeks after the
College's final registration. This would have
forced the three women to wait until January
to apply for admission, even if the case were
decided in their favor. Therefore, they asked
for the temporary injunction, which allows
them to enroll in the College until the case is
heard.

Three-Judge Court

Judge Merhige is one of the three judges
appointed to hear the case. Under federal rules,
Judge Merhige, as a member of the three-judge
court, may hear a motion for a temporary
injunction without the other judges being
present. He could have granted or denied the
motion without altering the final hearing date.

The controversy began last February 15,
when the University's Board of Visitors handed
down its Coeducation Decision. At that time,
the Board first resolved to allow women to be.
admitted to the College.

Their resolution cited that all restrictions on
the admission of women to the College and
other undergraduate schools should be removed,
and that the admission of women
should become effective September 1, 1970.

In a separate resolution, the Board approved
the admission of wives of students and wives
and daughters of staff members as transfer
students in their third and fourth years of
college, to become effective for this semester.

However, these women must have completed
two years of undergraduate work at
another accredited institution.

As of Friday, eleven women were enrolled in
the College. University News Service estimated
that only two of the eleven women were
first-year women. Besides Miss Scott, the other
female member of the first-year class of 1306
students is a faculty member's wife.

Graduate Women

Until the Board of Visitors' Coeducation
decision, the College was officially an all-men's
school. There are, however, over 1100 women
attending the University.

Women have long been accepted in the
graduate schools, and many women also
transfer to the Education School for undergraduate
work in their third year.

In the College, there have been few
exceptions to the all-male rule. It is recorded,
though, that a woman was accepted to the
1932-1933 first-year class. Since then, the
number of College women is uncertain.

Last May, however, four women filed suit
against the University because of its restrictive
admissions policy. The plaintiffs, the three
women already cited and Miss Nancy L.
Anderson, claimed that, despite the Board of
Visitors' February resolution, their civil rights
as guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the Constitution were being
denied.

The women felt that as a state institution,
the University could no more discriminate
against them because of sex any more than it
could against anyone because of their race,
creed, or national origin. These guarantees of
due process and equal protection under law
have been upheld in such Supreme Court
decisions as Bolling v. Sharp (1954) and Gaines
v. Canada.

The University denied the charges, citing
their decision to co educate, and calling the suit
"unnecessary." However, Judge Merhige issued
the temporary injunction, and his brief could
be a preview of the September 29 District
Court hearing.

Judge Merhige said, "Recognizing that
education is one of the more important
functions of the State government, any failure
to afford equal opportunity to all qualified to
pursue same amounts to irreparable damage...

"If racial segregation in State-supported
institutions is a denial of the due process of law